Steinborn Lift: Technique Pointers?

Discussion in 'Strength & Conditioning Discussion' started by Moose Face, Sep 11, 2010.

  1. Moose Face

    Moose Face White Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anybody here know any good tutorials/articles on the Steinborn Lift? I'm actually pretty happy with the technique I'm using, but I was just wondering if any of you either know of any good articles, or, even better, have personal experience of 'Steinborning.'

    As for why I'm using the steinborn, it's that old chestnut-I've got a barbell, but no squat stand/rack. As for the weight I'm currently using for this lift...er, embarrassingly light! 70 kg for 7 reps, followed by 3 lighter sets.
     
  2. Bennayboi

    Bennayboi Yellow Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    0
    My advice would be dont do it. Front squat, and do split squats, steps ups, lunges and bulgarian split squats.
     
  3. Moose Face

    Moose Face White Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sound advice! However, I've become kinda addicted to the back squat. Once I've saved some money-in about six months time-I'll get a sturdy set of squat stands. Until then, I know I should just settle for power cleaning the weight and doing front squats, but, like I say, I'm a back squataholic! So I'll stick with the Steinborn Lift but progress very slowly and carefully.

    I was just wondering if anybody out there had any technique pointers on the Steinborn? Searching the net, I haven't found any actual tutorials yet, just a few You tube videos.
     
  4. PWR1982

    PWR1982 Green Belt

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    1
    Why not get sawhorses?
     
  5. Moose Face

    Moose Face White Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    PWR1082: good suggestion! I think I might just do that...actually, I was all set to buy a pair of sawhorses two weeks ago, but I thought they were too short at 0.9 metres. Well, I just measured the distance between the floor and my shoulders at the bottom of an ATG squat...and 0.9 metres is plenty high enough! Woo-hoo!

    Still, I'm just wondering if any of you out there have experimented with the Steinborn?
     
  6. PWR1982

    PWR1982 Green Belt

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yeah, 0.9meters is definitely high enough, I would say that's a bit too high to be honest - if you wanna do atg squats at least - mine are 0.7m and I'm 6feet, 225pounds.

    I really wouldn't do the steinborn lift. I've done it with 40kg I think, and I don't know... I don't like it, I instead switched to doing the zercher lift, then zercher squats (before I got sawhorses).
     
  7. Moose Face

    Moose Face White Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    PWR1982: Wow, my maths really sucks! I'm only 5' 8", so if 0.7 metres is ideal for you at six foot, then 0.9 m will be way too freakin' high at my midget proportions!

    Well, I'll probably be getting a pair of saw horses tomorrow morning, which will likely signal the end of my Steinborn experiment! Which brings me to another question: any of you had any scary accidents using the Steinborn Lift?

    Personally, I damn near stoved my head in doing the Steinborn Lift a few months ago! I tried to Steinborn 80kg, the bar slipped out of my hands and I heard an almighty crash...luckily, the bar had landed on my TV, rather than my head! Even better, this TV still works!!! Since then, I reverted to power cleaning the weight and front squatting it, but I just couldn't stay away from the Back Squat!
     
  8. Bennayboi

    Bennayboi Yellow Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    0
    You should note that the backsquat is severely overhyped. If youre a powerlifter, then its essential to do, but if you want strong legs and athleticism, its not absolutely needed. But if you love it then go for it. Just dont forget unilateral work.
     
  9. VoodooPlata

    VoodooPlata Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,532
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    A sparkling socialist paradise
    Is there another type of squat with which you can move more weight?
     
  10. Moose Face

    Moose Face White Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, now that I've bought a pair of saw horses, I think this thread is officially dead and buried! Thanks to all for your input and observations, I really appreciate it. :D
     
  11. Bennayboi

    Bennayboi Yellow Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    0
    If moving weight is your goal, do quarter squats.
     
  12. Prokofievian

    Prokofievian Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,653
    Likes Received:
    6,642
    Location:
    Helsinki
    Richard P Feynman?
     
  13. VoodooPlata

    VoodooPlata Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,532
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    A sparkling socialist paradise
    Yes. Or, I'm not him, I just use a picture of him for my av. :icon_chee

    My goal is of course to do as much work as possible for one lift, and secondarily to do it with as much power as possible. Work equals force * distance, so that W = F * d. The force I must exert on an object for it to accelerate in the opposite direction of the gravitational pull equals the mass of the object times the gravitational pull, so that F > mg. This yields W = mg * d. For W to be as large as possible (my goal), I will want to maximize m and d - IE, move as much mass as I can as far as I can. For a quarter squat to force me into doing as much work as a full back squat I would need to quadruple the mass - this is assuming that a quarter squat is actually a quarter of the motion travelled, and completely ignoring biomechanical and other issues. These are of course incredibly important, but your suggestion to do quarter squats indicates that you have no understanding of this. Since i can't quarter squat four times more than i full squat, physics tells me to do full squats.

    (This, of course has little to do with the real reason to do full back squats with as much weight as possible. The point is that if I move more mass, whilst still assuming that we are all talking about full squats, I will grow more because I used more muscles to do heavier work. I just really like physics.)
     
  14. lena

    lena Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    692
    Likes Received:
    288
    Location:
    East Asia
    A scientific fact-based reply. A rare animal on these forums
     
  15. Mumrik

    Mumrik Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    10,767
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Denmark


    Good luck around here with that viewpoint...


    Anyway, that Steinborn lift looks like it would break my spine in no time.
     
  16. Bennayboi

    Bennayboi Yellow Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    0

    You didnt mention a specific distance or work done, you merely asked if it was possible to move more weight. Technically, with the quarter squat you do. I appreciate the physics, but i understand full squats work for building muscle, im just saying theyre arent absolutely necessary.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2010
  17. Prokofievian

    Prokofievian Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,653
    Likes Received:
    6,642
    Location:
    Helsinki
    That's actually bad-ass. I have his lectures on physics sitting in my study-room.
     
  18. VoodooPlata

    VoodooPlata Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,532
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    A sparkling socialist paradise
    Sorry, I assume that full squats are the order of the day on this forum. The point here is that back squats are the key to moving as much weight as possible an equal distance using your legs and back. Moving more weight means you are using more muscle, hence training more muscle, hence getting stronger. Front squats are great, but I (along with many others on this forum) believe that regular squats should be a staple of your training.

    Cool! Do you also study something physics-related?
     
  19. Prokofievian

    Prokofievian Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,653
    Likes Received:
    6,642
    Location:
    Helsinki
    I'm in electrical engineering. I won't get to use his lectures for study purpose until next term, but when that starts, boy will I ever need those lectures hahaha.

    Still they are quite fun to read, and follow along on my own.
     
  20. Moose Face

    Moose Face White Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Luckily, during my short time playing with the Steinborn, I didn't get any issues with back pain. But long term, I don't know...I took the precautions of keeping the reps in the moderate to high range (5-12), and alternating which side I 'Steinborned' the weight from set to set.

    For me, the main drawback of the Steinborn was the amount of effort I exerted just getting the bar into a Back Squat position! It was time-consuming and scary! The saw horses have made life much, much easier...

    That said, if I ever found myself again to be in a situation where I only had a barbell, I'd still choose the Steinborn Lift + Back Squat over the Power Clean + Front Squat.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.