Good Morning variations

RJ43

The Baddy
@Gold
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
15,991
Reaction score
1,514
I've seen many variations of good mornings: straight leg/bentover, straight leg/arch back etc... Which do you guys think is the most beneficial/safe good morning variation? I'm leaning towards doing a bent knee/arched back variation. Any help?
 
I think most people would agree that keeping your back arched is a pretty good idea, although there are a few fairly prominant trainers who advocate rounded back variants. Different stances make noticable differences. Most of the time, I keep my legs slightly bent and at around shoulder width, as it is easier for me to use a greater range of motion and heavier weights. At the same time, straight leg good mornings seem to work my hamstrings a lot harder, so every now and then I work in a few sets of straight leg good mornings. With any exercise, it usually doesn't hurt to alternate variations every now and then.
 
I think you will have a good morning, if you do those exercise before going to sleep.
I could never guess, who would do any exercises, especially the back, fist thing in the morning.
 
if you round your back during good mornings it will cause lower back damage, behind the neck presses hurt your shoulders, squating kills your knees, protein shakes hurts your kidneys, and masterbating makes you blind...


*rounded back and straight back are both great and should be cycled into your training.
 
Thanks alot guys. I did slightly bent knee arched back GMs today at they felt really good. I'll try and incorporate the other variations in weeks to come.
 
Clay Edgin posted a while back that the key in terms of back position while lifting is not to have your back arched or no, but to keep it in the same position throughout the lift. Effectively, the possibility of damage comes when your back goes from rounded to arched, or vice versa, while its under strain.

If a rounded back+heavy weight=injury, then there would be a line of crippled strongmen after every atlas stone event.
 
f a rounded back+heavy weight=injury, then there would be a line of crippled strongmen after every atlas stone event.

Also if one does heavy sandbag work, one has to be rounded to get that dam bag on your shoulder..:)))
 
I checked it out, Clay did say that, but it was 101010 who actually explained it in that fashion. Its here. He was a heavy lifter, if you dont remember him, used to be a football player to a high standard if I recall.

Thread is here LINK
 
anvar said:
if you round your back during good mornings it will cause lower back damage, behind the neck presses hurt your shoulders, squating kills your knees, protein shakes hurts your kidneys, and masterbating makes you blind...
Man, am I in trouble.
 
The thing with a rounded back versus an arched one is a matter of training. You see, no one trains the erector spinae muscles, those two columns of muscle on either side of your spine, specifically. There is a very interesting comparison that exists with abdominals.

A long time ago, no one knew what a crunch was. Everyone did situps. Well, eventually people realized that situps were training the hip flexors, muscles that bring the thighs closer to the torso, more than the abdominals themselves. This is because the hip flexors were doing all the active work. They were being used dynamically the entire time, whereas the abdominals were only being held isometrically throughout the movement. Sure, some people would let themselves drop all the way to the floor, but this was generally contraindicated because you bashed the back of your head too much like that.

So, they separated the movements and now you have the ab crunch. Rather than stabilizing the abs and moving the hip flexors, now the hip flexors are stabilized and the abs do the dynamic work. For some reason, no one thought to apply it to the opposite, antagonistic muscles, the erector spinae, or the "lower back".

So, I thought of it.

Everyone does lower back exercises with their spine stabilized and dynamically using the hip extensors (glutes and hamstrings). This is a good method of training, of course, and works very well functionally for lifting boxes and what-have-you, but it doesn't allow for mistakes. So, what happens if a little kid bumps into you and your spine flexes, ruining your straight back? Boom, there goes everything. Your spinal muscles were never conditioned for dynamic, active movement, and now you're lying on the ground calling for help.

So, I started doing these exercises on a back extension, or hyperextension, board. The thing that you put your hips up on that's angled 45
 
no one thought to apply it to the opposite, antagonistic muscles, the erector spinae, or the "lower back".
really, ive been doing reverse crunches as part of my sambo and judo training for year, these days I generally weight down my ankles while my upper body hangs over top of the stairs with a weight plate clutched to my chest.
 
Oops. Eh...that didn't come out exactly right. :redface:

No, I didn't invent the exercise, and yes, other people have thought of it, but I did think of it on my own, and it's not mainstream in the slightest. So, if you do this kind of work often enough, Smashius, then you should actually be fine to do rounded-back good mornings. Take it easy at first, of course, and work your way up. I wouldn't go any higher than the weight you use clutched up against your chest. What is that weight, if you don't mind me asking?


anvar said:
...behind the neck presses hurt your shoulders, squating kills your knees...
Yes, pressing behind the neck hurts your shoulders. Specifically the rotator cuff; the arm is simply not meant to rotate back that far. A lot of people also bop the bar against their cervical (neck) spine, which is obviously no good.

Squatting only kills your knees if you let the knees go past the ends of your toes at the low end of the movement. This usually happens to people who concentrate on simply bringing their torso elevation down without getting their butt out. You should be getting your butt out far enough for your friends to put drinks on, not to mention keeping your back in its natural posture, unless you're getting into more dynamic spinal strength.
 
Eclypse, you sound like you've read Core Performance?
 
Rounded GM have helped me get rid of lower back pain and my lower back no longer hinders my lifting. When standing back up I do straighten my back this makes it a hell of a workout for my back. Best to start light though and go fairly slow to ensure you can handle it.
 
Eclypse, that makes sense...I was always wondering how to strengthen those muscles....but figured they get stronger just through deadlifting....it makes sense to strengthen the rounding/straightening muscles of the back.

But, how then do you explain how crunches are frowned upon on the S&P forum these days, vs using weighted situps. Just a thought.
 
I can only agree about whats been said.

Despite deadlifting for a while I found out I was extremely weak in the lower back. So, there went my belief that dl strengthen your lower back. Now Im doing hyperext. to build a strong lower back that can handle the dl and also sqatting.
 
madmick said:
Eclypse, you sound like you've read Core Performance?
I'm not much of a reader, to be honest. I've been to school for Exercise Science for two years and been working as a personal trainer for two years as well. All the stuff I said about "inventing" what I call a "back crunch" is simply logical application over time; I know other people have realized the same thing, but it's just not mainstream exercise knowledge. That's the nice thing about my job; I work at a YMCA where I can be more concerned with health than the hotness of my client's body. :rolleyes:


antant said:
But, how then do you explain how crunches are frowned upon on the S&P forum these days, vs using weighted situps. Just a thought.
I don't know exactly why the people in the S&P forum don't like crunches; I don't tend to read over the old stuff so much as answer the new stuff. I don't really have that kind of time.

Anyway, my theory on why people wouldn't like crunches is because most people just do body-weight crunches, which lessens the strength stimulus once you're strong enough to do more than 16 reps nonstop. I do my crunches on a selectorized machine, which allows you to add weight directly to keep up the proper repetition range for strength and size. Also, crunches don't have the most common, everyday practical applications. However, for MMA purposes, they are excellent for building size, which means they provide better armor as well.

I think people should do an equal amount of crunches and situps, really. Situps are good for developing the hip flexors but not so much for the abs. It's hard to do a high-efficiency oblique situp, though, so crunches are necessary for the obliques.

The big problem is that people get their information from magazines or hearsay. Most magazines, like most people that offer you advice, are more concerned with impressing you, getting your attention, and in the case of magazines especially, getting your money. I'm pretty logic-minded, so I figured rather than trying to sort out all the garbage you get from magazines and hearsay, I would go study. Honestly, you could pick up a Personal Training Manual, from ACE or NCSM or NASM or someone, and get some great clarity from that. It'll run ya a few bucks, but isn't it worth it in the end?
 
you can also do good mornings by holding a 10-35lb plate a few inches above your head.. i do this sometimes instead of the barbell way
 
Back
Top