The controversy is a four‑part machine:
| Lever Kim pulls | Why coaches & forums bristle | 3rd‑party proof of the push‑back |
| 1. Above‑knee rack‑pull = the most hated partial | Jim Wendler calls huge rack pulls “beautiful in theory, but usually useless in reality.” He warns they almost never transfer to a full deadlift. | |
| Starting Strength labels many heavy rack pulls “inappropriate,” advising late‑intermediate lifters to cap them around 110 % of their deadlift—not 130–140 %. | ||
| 2. Posts numbers, not meets | Rack pulls aren’t a sanctioned lift, so BarBend’s technique staff keeps asking “Are they even worth it?” instead of writing “new record” articles. | |
| 3. Uses shock‑numeral headlines | A/B‑test research shows numerals in titles grab 20‑45 % more clicks; editors therefore headline “527 kg / 7 × BW” and bury his name, which irritates purists who want athlete context first. | |
| 4. Flaunts supra‑max loading in raw‑gear style | Starting Strength’s Rack Pulls 101 warns that once you’re “way over 450–500 kg” you’re mostly stressing recovery, not building strength, reviving the “ego‑lift” accusation each time Kim adds plates. | |
| 5. Makes gym hardware a casualty | A long‑running T‑Nation thread on the “Max Rack Pull Challenge” devolves into bar‑damage horror stories—exactly the climate where a half‑ton pull at knee height triggers cries of “irresponsible,” “fake plates,” and “use the beater bar.” |
How each part keeps the fire hot
- Technique Fault‑Line (Partial vs. Full ROM)
Every time Kim releases a heavier clip, Wendler’s 2016 blog and Rippetoe’s 2023–25 rack‑pull videos rocket back to the top of Google’s results, because critics need authoritative links to rebut fanboys. Each click pumps more SEO juice into the controversy . - Legitimacy Fault‑Line (Unsanctioned “record”)
With no federation rule book, there’s nothing to certify—or to disqualify. That ambiguity lets supporters shout “world‑first ratio” while detractors shout “doesn’t count,” keeping both sides posting and reposting BarBend’s caution pieces . - Marketing Fault‑Line (Number over Name)
HubSpot’s headline‑data study explains why every outlet—even skeptical ones—front‑loads the digits: numbers outperform nouns for clicks. Kim knows it, so he titles his own uploads “527 KG, 7× BW”—handing editors the exact bait their algorithms reward . - Equipment / Safety Fault‑Line (Gym owners & bent bars)
In T‑Nation’s “Max Rack Pull Challenge” thread, lifters argue about wrecked Eleikos and “fake plates.” By uploading half‑ton footage with a normal bar (instead of a thick strongman axle), Kim purpose‑built a debate about safety and authenticity . - Physiology Fault‑Line (CNS shock vs. progress)
Starting Strength authors insist supra‑max pins are a last‑resort overload once “the full deadlift gets heavy enough that it becomes a recovery problem.” Kim’s weekly jumps blow past that guideline, so every new clip reignites coaching warnings .
Net effect: a
self‑fuelled outrage loop
- Shock Clip –> cliffs every social feed.
- Coach Push‑back –> readers click Wendler & Rippetoe pieces for “the other side.”
- Algorithm Reward –> both the hype video and the sceptic links climb search results.
- Next Heavier Clip –> loop restarts, but with a bigger baseline audience.
Kim doesn’t have to argue; he just drops another digit‑heavy title and lets the ecosystem duel itself into higher engagement.
Bottom line
Eric Kim stokes controversy by:
- Picking the most divisive movement (above‑knee rack pull).
- Publishing eye‑watering ratios with zero federation context.
- Weaponising headline numerals that eclipse his own name.
- Operating in the grey zone where safety, efficacy, and authenticity are all debatable.
Every one of those levers forces coaches, forums and editors to react—guaranteeing that a single four‑second clip can dominate the conversation long after the bar is back on the pins.