Building Bigger Lats - AnabolicMinds.com

Building Bigger Lats

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. cobain67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    26
    Posts
    111
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Building Bigger Lats


    I am currently on a cycle of PHs and would like to take this opportunity to build my weaker areas, one of which are my lats. I was wondering how my current back routine could be changed to build the most lat width and thickness. I would like to be able to do wide-gripped chins with my bodyweight (at least..)

    Barbell Deadlifts: 3 sets 4-6

    Barbell Rows: 3 sets 6-8

    T-Bar Rows: 3 sets 6-8

    WG Pulldowns: 3 sets 6-8

    Hammer Grip Chins: 3 sets 4-6

  2. bencozzy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    27
    Posts
    140
    Rep Power
    192

    Reputation

    my back routine is as follows

    DB shrugs 3 sets 5-8reps
    BB deadlift 4 sets 6-10 reps
    t-bar or BB rows 3 sets 4-6 reps
    chins 3 sets 4-12 reps

    and a side note i dont specificly try my biceps seperately
  3. jminis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    4,023
    Rep Power
    2187

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by cobain67
    I am currently on a cycle of PHs and would like to take this opportunity to build my weaker areas, one of which are my lats. I was wondering how my current back routine could be changed to build the most lat width and thickness. I would like to be able to do wide-gripped chins with my bodyweight (at least..)

    Barbell Deadlifts: 3 sets 4-6

    Barbell Rows: 3 sets 6-8

    T-Bar Rows: 3 sets 6-8

    WG Pulldowns: 3 sets 6-8

    Hammer Grip Chins: 3 sets 4-6
    Add close grip lat pulldowns ( a little closer then shoulder width). This exercise is greater for the lower lats, the ones you'll see hanging under your arms. Enjoy the wings. Later J
    •   
       

  4. hypo's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    524
    Rep Power
    422

    Reputation

    use the assisted pullup machine if they have it. And I would personally lower the number of sets of eliminate an exercise or two. Heavy deads, chins, and some kind of heavy row would be enough for me personally.
  5. Stroyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    41
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    170

    Reputation

    For overal lat width for me nothing beats reverse grip pulldowns, vary grip each set anywhere from close, shoulder width and wider than shoulder width, second I would recommend wide grip pulldowns using a straight bar NOT the type that are angled at the ends but a completely straight bar. Other ex I feel for me really hit the lats are 1-arm dumbbell rows(make sure to get a good stretch at the bottom & do em standing) & close neutral grip seated cable rows.

    For thickness I like, bent over barbell rows, bent over smith machine rows, and fwd or closer neutral grip bent over T-Bar rows(not the chest supported type) & of course deadlifts(from the floor) or rack deads or even smith deads.

    Stroy
  6. rajscorps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    51
    Rep Power
    161

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by hypo
    And I would personally lower the number of sets of eliminate an exercise or two. Heavy deads, chins, and some kind of heavy row would be enough for me personally.
    I second that.
  7. good_guye28's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Age
    45
    Posts
    297
    Rep Power
    287

    Reputation

    im tellin ya i got great width doing wide grip chins and adding some weight on it. my back is my best body part. i have people always asking me what i do for it and my traps.
  8. Lean One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,673
    Rep Power
    1469

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by hypo
    use the assisted pullup machine if they have it. And I would personally lower the number of sets of eliminate an exercise or two. Heavy deads, chins, and some kind of heavy row would be enough for me personally.
    I'll third that.
  9. jjjd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    703
    Rep Power
    997

    Reputation

    jminis, i would love to know how any exercise can emphasize the "lower lats" since the lats run as one muscle fiber. how does one preferentially emphasize the lower portion of a muscle fiber?
  10. sarge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Age
    60
    Posts
    55
    Rep Power
    147

    Reputation

    as a rule pulling back movments build thickness,pulling down builds width.so chins,and any type of pull downs on the lat machine for width,and bent rows,t bar rows,i arm db rows,for thickness.deads hit more of the erectors and will build overall back mass.
  11. RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1263

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jjjd
    jminis, i would love to know how any exercise can emphasize the "lower lats" since the lats run as one muscle fiber. how does one preferentially emphasize the lower portion of a muscle fiber?
    I'm assuming it would work similar to how incline press emphasizes the upper portion on the pec muscle fibers.
  12. jjjd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    703
    Rep Power
    997

    Reputation

    rob, the upper and lower pecs have DIFFERENT insertion/origin points

    you can preferentially emphasize one over the other because of the anatomy of the pectoralis major

    there is a biologically distinct upper pectoralis vs. lower pectoralis

    there is no biologically distinct upper lat vs. lower lat

    so, the situation is not analoguous and my question remains
  13. jminis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    4,023
    Rep Power
    2187

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jjjd
    rob, the upper and lower pecs have DIFFERENT insertion/origin points

    you can preferentially emphasize one over the other because of the anatomy of the pectoralis major

    there is a biologically distinct upper pectoralis vs. lower pectoralis

    there is no biologically distinct upper lat vs. lower lat

    so, the situation is not analoguous and my question remains
    What you say is true but I read an article (don't remember where) that stated that close grip will bring out the lower portion of the lats. I've incorporated them into my routine and boom my lower lats started to come out. Maybe it's just because your hitting them from a different angle, regardless of exactly why, it worked.
  14. GottaMakeIt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    150

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jminis
    What you say is true but I read an article (don't remember where) that stated that close grip will bring out the lower portion of the lats. I've incorporated them into my routine and boom my lower lats started to come out. Maybe it's just because your hitting them from a different angle, regardless of exactly why, it worked.
    Yea,, but why would u want to hit lower lats?.. wont overdeveloped lower lats kill the V-taper ?
  15. Lean One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,673
    Rep Power
    1469

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jminis
    What you say is true but I read an article (don't remember where) that stated that close grip will bring out the lower portion of the lats. I've incorporated them into my routine and boom my lower lats started to come out. Maybe it's just because your hitting them from a different angle, regardless of exactly why, it worked.
    I agree with Jminis here. It's all about angles and leverage. Even though the lat is one muscle, depending on the angle of pull you will clearly stress one area over another.

    Case in point . the bicep is probably the simplist muscle we are concerned with in terms of shape (unipennate) and insertion points. However, when you do a bicep curl on an incline bench so your arm is hanging down behind you, stress is clearly placed on the lower part of the bicep towards the elbow.That's where it's sore the next day. Alternatively, when you perform the same exercise PRONE on an incline bench so your arm hangs down in front of you, the stress is clearly focused on the upper part of the bicep near the shoulder. The difrence is clearly perceptable. Sometimes book theory doesn't always apply in the real world.

    And BTW, Why be such an instigator? It serves no useful purpose other than clutter the board with bull**** negativity.
  16. jminis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    4,023
    Rep Power
    2187

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by GottaMakeIt
    Yea,, but why would u want to hit lower lats?.. wont overdeveloped lower lats kill the V-taper ?
    Just the opposite it will help with the v taper
  17. jminis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    4,023
    Rep Power
    2187

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Lean One
    I agree with Jminis here. It's all about angles and leverage. Even though the lat is one muscle, depending on the angle of pull you will clearly stress one area over another.

    Case in point . the bicep is probably the simplist muscle we are concerned with in terms of shape (unipennate) and insertion points. However, when you do a bicep curl on an incline bench so your arm is hanging down behind you, stress is clearly placed on the lower part of the bicep towards the elbow.That's where it's sore the next day. Alternatively, when you perform the same exercise PRONE on an incline bench so your arm hangs down in front of you, the stress is clearly focused on the upper part of the bicep near the shoulder. The difrence is clearly perceptable. Sometimes book theory doesn't always apply in the real world.

    And BTW, Why be such an instigator? It serves no useful purpose other than clutter the board with bull**** negativity.
    Exactly
  18. jjjd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    703
    Rep Power
    997

    Reputation

    instigator? why is it ok to repeat "brotelligence" about training, but not about AAS

    i see simply no evidence to believe (and tons to disbelieve) that one can preferentially emphasize the lower lats. iow, absent evidence, it's absurd

    you can't break the laws of physiology because you think it sounds kewl

    as far as the lower biceps being more sore, therefore the MUSCLE is preferentially stressed, that is equally absurd. the fact that it is sore might just be tendon stress? who knows? but to say it is preferentially emphasizing a different PORTION of a muscle fiber is absurd. sorry.

    brotelligence doesn't fly with AAS; it shouldn't fly with training either. or are we here to sing kumbaya and not expect some degree of rigeur?

    sorry, if insisting that bogus statements about physiology are questioned makes me an "instigator" than i proudly wear that name - instigator
  19. Lean One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,673
    Rep Power
    1469

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jjjd
    as far as the lower biceps being more sore, therefore the MUSCLE is preferentially stressed, that is equally absurd. the fact that it is sore might just be tendon stress? who knows? but to say it is preferentially emphasizing a different PORTION of a muscle fiber is absurd. sorry.
    Mabey you should brush up on your physiology. A muscle fiber will contract either with full force or none at all.True. However, Depending on how stress is placed on a muscle and the relative position of the bodypart will recriut difrent motor neurons to get the job done most eficiently. So there. Instigator...
  20. jminis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    4,023
    Rep Power
    2187

    Reputation

    Brotelligence? where do you get that from, Cobain asked a question because he was having problems with his lats and I gave him an exercise to help with them. Do close grip lat pulldowns emphasize the lower portion of the lats, YES. It's called knowing your body and how it works, not sticking my head in a book and saying oh well this won't work because.

    LeanOne your dead on. The body tries to make things as easy and efficient as possible. This is why when you hit failure your form goes to ****, your body wants to bring in secondary muscles to help with the stress. Anyway different angles activate different motor neurons which will in return are connected to muscle fibers (motor unit). So why do you think it's impossible to activate the lower or upper portion of of muscle?

    One last thing, some things look great on paper but don't really pan out in the real world (ex. certain supps or PH's). Our bodies are the most complicated machines on earth. To sit at your keyboard preaching you "know" something is impossible for the body is just comical.




    Quote Originally Posted by jjjd
    instigator? why is it ok to repeat "brotelligence" about training, but not about AAS

    i see simply no evidence to believe (and tons to disbelieve) that one can preferentially emphasize the lower lats. iow, absent evidence, it's absurd

    you can't break the laws of physiology because you think it sounds kewl

    as far as the lower biceps being more sore, therefore the MUSCLE is preferentially stressed, that is equally absurd. the fact that it is sore might just be tendon stress? who knows? but to say it is preferentially emphasizing a different PORTION of a muscle fiber is absurd. sorry.

    brotelligence doesn't fly with AAS; it shouldn't fly with training either. or are we here to sing kumbaya and not expect some degree of rigeur?

    sorry, if insisting that bogus statements about physiology are questioned makes me an "instigator" than i proudly wear that name - instigator
  21. BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    63
    Posts
    2,373
    Rep Power
    1309

    Reputation

    (never tried to upload an image before - hope this works)

    jjjd, the point is not the single, narrow insertion, but that broad sweep of origin! changing the angle of the pull shifts the load among the various regions/bundles/fibers (pick one) - which you can see from the illo.

    That said, it's clear that subtle changes in how one addresses the exercise in question (and the form one adopts) can have wide(!)-ranging impact on the muscle being targeted. Any muscle, in fact, having similarly broad origin, *and* sufficient range-of-motion to safely apply the load along the desired vector.

    This is what people mean when they talk about "hitting a muscle from all angles" (assuming of course that they know some M-S physiology).

    Not being an exercise physiologist by trade, I stand to be be corrected....

    LO? jminis? Am I full of it here?

    Anyway, hope this helps
    Attached Images Attached Images  
  22. BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    63
    Posts
    2,373
    Rep Power
    1309

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jjjd
    instigator? why is it ok to repeat "brotelligence" about training, but not about AAS

    you can't break the laws of physiology because you think it sounds kewl
    ...and by the same token, you can't simply dismiss them because you don't understand them.

    well...not if you want to stay injury-free, that is

    Quote Originally Posted by jjjd
    as far as the lower biceps being more sore, therefore the MUSCLE is preferentially stressed, that is equally absurd. the fact that it is sore might just be tendon stress? who knows? but to say it is preferentially emphasizing a different PORTION of a muscle fiber is absurd. sorry.
    what's absurd is figuring that TENDON stress would mimic MUSCLE soreness. if you can't tell the difference between the two in your own body...well...maybe you should work with a trainer or something
  23. Lean One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,673
    Rep Power
    1469

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by BodyWizard
    LO? jminis? Am I full of it here?
    Abselutely...NOT! Very well put. Exactly what I was trying to get across in difrent words. And with pictures even! That's way beyond my abilities. Thanks for the input.
  24. BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    63
    Posts
    2,373
    Rep Power
    1309

    Reputation

    *blush*
    thanks for the kind words!
  25. jminis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    4,023
    Rep Power
    2187

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by BodyWizard
    (never tried to upload an image before - hope this works)

    jjjd, the point is not the single, narrow insertion, but that broad sweep of origin! changing the angle of the pull shifts the load among the various regions/bundles/fibers (pick one) - which you can see from the illo.

    That said, it's clear that subtle changes in how one addresses the exercise in question (and the form one adopts) can have wide(!)-ranging impact on the muscle being targeted. Any muscle, in fact, having similarly broad origin, *and* sufficient range-of-motion to safely apply the load along the desired vector.

    This is what people mean when they talk about "hitting a muscle from all angles" (assuming of course that they know some M-S physiology).

    Not being an exercise physiologist by trade, I stand to be be corrected....

    LO? jminis? Am I full of it here?

    Anyway, hope this helps

    Your right on man nice illustration. I was trying to get this point across above but didn't put it as elegantly as you. LOL
  26. BLee32x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    28
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    124

    Reputation

    Let me chime in here.

    Most may not think of this for building lats, but I feel the most underrated overrated exercise is the barbell bench press. It's overrated because people believe it is the pinnacle of all chest exercises, which it is not. However, I am a firm believer that it is one of the, if not THE, best exercise for building upper body mass.

    I will probably be kicked in the balls and banned for thinking so, since the movement has nearly become taboo for hardcore bodybuilders, but as long as you use proper form rather than trying to look big with a heavy bench, you will be free from injury....and be building a huge upper body. JMO.
  27. Lean One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,673
    Rep Power
    1469

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by BLee32x
    Let me chime in here.

    Most may not think of this for building lats, but I feel the most underrated overrated exercise is the barbell bench press. It's overrated because people believe it is the pinnacle of all chest exercises, which it is not. However, I am a firm believer that it is one of the, if not THE, best exercise for building upper body mass.

    I will probably be kicked in the balls and banned for thinking so, since the movement has nearly become taboo for hardcore bodybuilders, but as long as you use proper form rather than trying to look big with a heavy bench, you will be free from injury....and be building a huge upper body. JMO.
    That's a good point. That's why I train chest and back together. It's a pretty cool feeling when you get done working chest and you have a lat pump too. Makes me feel like an animal. GRRRRR....

    Oh, BTW,
  28. jjjd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    703
    Rep Power
    997

    Reputation

    i would LOVE to see an EMG study or ANY study that shows one can preferentially work the "lower lats" or the "lower biceps". this, to me sounds akin to the pre-copernicans using ever elaborate explanations to try to uphold their theories.

    sorry, doesn't fly with me

    furthermore, there is a simpler way to confirm this. have you ever seen pictures of various elite bbers when they were young, and/or before they started training?

    i have. arnold, cutler, ruhl, etc.

    i have never seen ONE change the shape of a muscle, or have any development that would suggest they could preferentially emphasize "lower lats", "lower biceps" etc.

    otoh, you CAN preferentially emphasize lower vs. upper abs, because even though they are one sheet of muscle, they have a special structure and with different innervation points (which anybody watching a belly dancer could confirm) AND emg studies have confirmed this

    sorry, jminis et al, but i find your defense of "lower lat" training non-persuasive

    i remain, eternally yours... the instigator.
  29. Lean One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,673
    Rep Power
    1469

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jjjd
    i have never seen ONE change the shape of a muscle, or have any development that would suggest they could preferentially emphasize "lower lats", "lower biceps" etc.
    Nobody here said anything about changing the shape of a muscle. What we're talking about here is developing your genetic structure to its fullest potential.

    I have no need to persuade you. It serves no purpose to me. I have complete confidence in my knowledge and experience. It's your right to disagree. It makes no difrence to me whatsoever.
  30. jjjd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    703
    Rep Power
    997

    Reputation

    i didn't say you had a need to persuade me

    i have seen zero evidence for anybody ever preferentially emphasizing lower lats or lower biceps.

    i accept mythology for what it is.

    when and if anybody has some evidence that this can be done, i'm all for listening.

    i'm glad you have complete confidence in your knowledge and experience. i am always looking to learn new things, but i do so with a critical eye

    as soon as somebody presents me with a REASON to believe that lower lats/biceps can be preferentially emphasized, i would love to be stood corrected. it would mean i had learned something new. that's a good thing

    but i don't accept "brotelligence", and that's how i see the justifications for same, thus far.

    it's not an insult or an attack on any person. it is a questioning/critique of ideas

    fwiw, back on subject... my preferred exercise for bigger lats are

    1) pullups (wider grip)
    2) pullovers (imo, certain machines in a rare instance of machines being better than freeweights are arguably superior for this exercise)
    3) lat pulldowns

    i think deadlifts and clean and jerks are great allover back (and body) exercises, but despite my love for them, i think some of the above exercises are more lat-specific
  31. jminis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    4,023
    Rep Power
    2187

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Lean One
    Nobody here said anything about changing the shape of a muscle. What we're talking about here is developing your genetic structure to its fullest potential.

    I have no need to persuade you. It serves no purpose to me. I have complete confidence in my knowledge and experience. It's your right to disagree. It makes no difrence to me whatsoever.
    I feel the same here. I never said you can change the shape of the muscle nor do I believe one can do so, I'm simply saying by doing certain exercises from various angles you can work certain parts of the muscle (aka activate different bundles of muscle fiber) They don't all fire 100% every lift depending on the angle the muscle is hit dictates which are used more.

    Also jjjd I don't see you as an instigator bro, nothing wrong with questioning things that's what were here for, discussion!!
  32. BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    63
    Posts
    2,373
    Rep Power
    1309

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jminis
    I feel the same here. I never said you can change the shape of the muscle nor do I believe one can do so, I'm simply saying by doing certain exercises from various angles you can work certain parts of the muscle (aka activate different bundles of muscle fiber) They don't all fire 100% every lift depending on the angle the muscle is hit dictates which are used more.
    NONE of us was saying this....

    maybe the source of confusion lies here:
    Quote Originally Posted by jjjjd
    jminis, i would love to know how any exercise can emphasize the "lower lats" since the lats run as one muscle fiber. how does one preferentially emphasize the lower portion of a muscle fiber?
    seems pretty clear jjjd doesn't know the difference between a muscle, a muscle fiber, and a fiber bundle - not to single him out, I'm sure most people don't.

    jjjd - you are right in this: one cannot "preferentially emphasise" *part* of a muscle fiber - either the fiber is recruited (that is, fully engaged) by a movement or it isn't. But take a look at that picture I posted of the lat: all those lines in the muscle (striations) are bundles of fibers. That's what muscles are: multiple bundles of multiple fibers.

    Notice the fan shape to the muscle: this is due to the bundles originating over such a wide area. Now, consider that each fiber can only pull IN A STRAIGHT LINE, and you can see that the lower fibers (the bundles that originate near the pelvis) pull along a different line than the upper fibers, the ones that originate @ the level of the shoulder blade.

    See? That's why different exercises, grips, etc. can target different regions of a muscle. The line you pull along determines which bundles of fibers carry the load...and are therefore preferentially recruited. This, along with injury-prevention, is why proper form is so important.

    This is not brotelligence - this is science (no disrespect intended to the wisdom / experience of real lifters - scientists can fall victim to their own forms of brotelligence). Any decent anatomy / physiology textbook will tell you the same - you can pick one up used for relatively cheap at a local college bookstore. With these facts, and some thought, the whole issue of the "lower lats" should clear itself up.

    That said, I'm smart enough to know that there are people smarter / better informed than me - so once again, I stand ready to be corrected.

    I have to thank cobain67 for the initial question, and jjjd for the spur, 'cause it got me off my ass & back into my textbooks (it's been a few years). It also got me looking into texts on exercise physiology: in case anyone cares, here are a few I found on Amazon:

    Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance
    Exercise Physiology: Human Bioenergetics and Its Applications with PowerWeb
    Exercise Physiology for Health, Fitness and Performance (2nd Edition)

    *whew*

    once again, I hope this helps!
  33. jjjd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    703
    Rep Power
    997

    Reputation

    while i respect what you say, i have read plenty of physiology textbooks myself, and discussed this with kinesiology majors

    i respectfully would request a cite that shows one can preferentially emphasize lower lats, or any bundle of fibers in a muscle like the lower lats (as opposed to a muscle like the pecs or abs)...

    i understand what you are saying. i just don't agree it's possible, based on my understanding of kinesiology. my mind is open, given the right evidence

    furthermore, on the other point, ***if*** one could preferentially emphasize a portion of a muscle (like lower lats or lower biceps) then one COULD change the shape of that muscle

    by preferentially emphasizing lower or upper pecs, you can change the shape of the pec area as a whole. if your upper chest is flat, you can fix that.

    however, i see no evidence that you can preferentially emphasize the lower lats (or lower biceps) and *if* you could, the muscle shape WOULD change. the location of origin/insertion would not change, but the shape of the muscle WOULD change, since the lower lat would hypertrophy disproportionately to the other parts
  34. Lean One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,673
    Rep Power
    1469

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jjjd
    however, i see no evidence that you can preferentially emphasize the lower lats (or lower biceps) and *if* you could, the muscle shape WOULD change. the location of origin/insertion would not change, but the shape of the muscle WOULD change, since the lower lat would hypertrophy disproportionately to the other parts
    Sorry man. I disagree with this reasoning. Muscles just don't hypertrophy like that.

    As for the rest of the argument, I give up. I'm out.
    It was fun though.
  35. jjjd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    703
    Rep Power
    997

    Reputation

    ok. not that i gotta get the last word, but...

    if you are emphasizing the lower lats, and you are NOT causing more hypetrophy in the lower lats, what exactly are you "emphasizing" there?

    i agree. muscles DON'T work like that. because you CAN'T emphasize the lower lats

    contrarily, you CAN emphasize the upper pecs, which is why people can change the shape of the pec as a whole, if by shape you mean the relative size of the upper vs. lower pecs. Flat upper chest? do more inclines. THAT works. and there is good reason.

    but *if* you can preferentially emphasize a part of a muscle (like the lats, and i believe you canNOT), then you can preferentially hypertrophy it. else, what does EMPHASIZE mean?

    seriously.
  36. RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1263

    Reputation

    I know this isn't a scientific experiment, but I've never done close grip lat pulls before, always wide grip. I started doing close grip lat pulls two weeks ago. I'll let you all know if my lower lats grow noticably over the next couple of months.
  37. jjjd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    703
    Rep Power
    997

    Reputation

    jpegs!
  38. BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    63
    Posts
    2,373
    Rep Power
    1309

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jjjd
    i respectfully would request a cite that shows one can preferentially emphasize lower lats, or any bundle of fibers in a muscle like the lower lats (as opposed to a muscle like the pecs or abs)...

    i understand what you are saying. i just don't agree it's possible, based on my understanding of kinesiology. my mind is open, given the right evidence
    it may well be that we must simply disagree. I regret that I cannot provide you with the citation you request - I'm not sure one exists, and I'm not sure how I'd find it, to be frank - largely because you seem to be challenging me to prove a point I'm not arguing.

    furthermore, on the other point, ***if*** one could preferentially emphasize a portion of a muscle (like lower lats or lower biceps) then one COULD change the shape of that muscle

    however, i see no evidence that you can preferentially emphasize the lower lats (or lower biceps) and *if* you could, the muscle shape WOULD change. the location of origin/insertion would not change, but the shape of the muscle WOULD change, since the lower lat would hypertrophy disproportionately to the other parts
    It may be that we should discard the word "emphasize" - I don't know who brought it into the discussion, but you seem to give a weight & significance I do not, so I'll have a last, brief go at getting around the potential stumbling block.

    First: the earliest example of brotelligence I recall (as in bogus legend) was the idea that one could change the shape of muscles (the particular issue was altering the peak of a biceps by doing the special curl the secret way). I accept that such changes can't be made any more than one can change hair color by using the right bobby-pins or something; so, can we get past the idea that ANYONE is talking about that? Thanks!

    Second, can we agree that there is value to using both wide-grip and narrow grip when lifting, and likewise in using other variations of form, for the purpose of thoroughly working/stressing/wringing out the muscles? I'm certainly prepared to be wrong on this, but if I am, wouldn't that mean that each muscle only needs one exercise, one form, and that ANY variation from that single ideal movement is 'mythology'?


    AFAIC, the whole issue is nothing more than an initial suggestion that cobain67 ensure *complete* development of his lats by using a grip change that would help ensure that his lats get fully developed. Standard variation, sensible advice, at least to me. No-one said 'hey, kid, do this, and this part of your muscle will end up being special'; maybe you thought that's what we were saying. If I'd thought that was what was being recommended, I'd have called for a time-out, too.

    Thanks for helping me give my brain a good workout - you've definitely had me hitting my thought-muscle from an unaccustomed angle!
  39. jjjd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    703
    Rep Power
    997

    Reputation

    of course there is benefit to wide grip/vs narrow grip, for instance. it's not that it emphasizes the lower lats, or that any exercise does (and i repeat - if you are EMPHASIZING something, you are preferentially hypertrophy'ing it)...

    it's that it is preferentially emphasizing the lats in regards to the ratio of work done by the lats vs. the rhomboids, biceps, etc

    different exercises, variations of same will emphasize different muscle GROUPS in different %ages. with some compounds, if a certain weak link is reaching failure first, for example, another muscle group may be getting insufficient work

    it's well known, for example, that moving your grip in, in the bench press, preferentially increases emphasis on triceps and deemphasizes (proportionally) the pecs.

    moving wider does the opposite

    and certain ab exercises can preferentially emphasize lower vs. upper abs, as both EMG studies have shown, and common sense would show

    and certain ways of curling (hammer for instance) will preferentially emphasize the brachialis vs. the standard curl which preferentially empashizes the biceps brachii

    or that seated calf raises preferentially emphasize the soleus

    you get the point

    but i respectfully say you can't preferentially emphasize lower lats, nor has anybody explained what emphasis means, if it doesn't result in preferential hypertrophy.

    in all the other cases i mention, preferential empasizing will result in preferential hypertrophy
  40. BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    63
    Posts
    2,373
    Rep Power
    1309

    Reputation

    so you were using "preferential emphasis" as a term of art?
    Had you made that known, we could have avoided talking at cross-purposes.

    I just went back over the early part of the thread , and it was *you* who introduced 'preferential emphasis' into the conversation, but you did not disclose the special meaning it has for you. You then proceeded to whack everyone with it repeatedly. I respectfully request that, when you inject terms of art into a general discussion, you define those terms on the front end.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Need a bigger back(lats)!!
    By MiniGun in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-30-2013, 11:48 AM
  2. Building bigger triceps
    By krazyg3o in forum General Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-03-2012, 10:38 PM
  3. need help getting my lats bigger
    By Montesano813 in forum Exercise Science
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-08-2010, 08:21 AM
  4. help me build lats
    By greekgeorge in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-17-2010, 12:07 AM
  5. Lats and wide grip pull-ups (bigger in 4 days?)
    By Jim Mills in forum Exercise Science
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-17-2006, 08:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in