Building Bigger Lats

cobain67

Banned
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
 
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
 
cobain67 said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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
 
hypo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I second that.
 
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.
 
hypo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'll third that.
 
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?
 
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.
 
jjjd said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'm assuming it would work similar to how incline press emphasizes the upper portion on the pec muscle fibers.
 
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
 
jjjd said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
jminis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yea,, but why would u want to hit lower lats?.. wont overdeveloped lower lats kill the V-taper ?
 
jminis said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 bullshit negativity.
 
Lean One said:
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 bullshit negativity.
Click to expand...

Exactly :goodpost:
 
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
 
jjjd said:
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.
Click to expand...
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... :rasp:
 
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.




jjjd said:
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
Click to expand...
 
(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
 

Attachments

  • Lat.gif
    Lat.gif
    43.6 KB · Views: 223
jjjd said:
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
Click to expand...
...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

jjjd said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 :hammer:
 
BodyWizard said:
LO? jminis? Am I full of it here?
Click to expand...
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.:blink: Thanks for the input. :thumbsup:
 
BodyWizard said:
(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
Click to expand...


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
 
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.
 
BLee32x said:
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.
Click to expand...
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, :welcome:
 
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. :)
 
jjjd said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 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
 
Lean One said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!!
 
jminis said:
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.
Click to expand...
NONE of us was saying this....

maybe the source of confusion lies here:
jjjjd said:
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?
Click to expand...
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:

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

*whew*

once again, I hope this helps!
 
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
 
jjjd said:
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
Click to expand...
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. :rolleyes:
It was fun though.
 
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.
 
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. :D
 
jjjd said:
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
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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! :thumbsup:
 
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
 
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.
 
""This exercise is greater for the lower lats, the ones you'll see hanging under your arms. Enjoy the wings. Later J"

clearly that it what i am responding to. imo it's bollocks. and "greater" for the LOWER LATS implies emphasis of same

hth
 
jjjd said:
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.
Click to expand...
Before I get to why, just one quick comment.
If what you are saying is correct, then there would only need to be one type of exercise for each body part.
For example, we all know bb curls work, so does that mean every other exercise is a waste of time?

Do a search for Compartmentalisation, read the studies, and then ask yourself what you believe.
 
Andrew, your claim is bogus because exercises do not work in isolation.

and of course, SOME bodyparts (ie the pecs, the abs) can be worked preferentially due to different inervation points and./or origin/insertion points

there is no such thing as a true "isolation" exercise. take the ubiquitous barbell curl. it doesn't just work the biceps brachii. it also works the brachialis, the brachioradialis, the front delt (depending), etc.

different back exercises work different muscles through different ROMS (and it is true that working a muscle through a shortened ROM preferentially strengthens the response (probably neural) closer to that ROM), and in different proportion

for example, a wide grip pullup emphasizes the lats to a greater extent vs. the rhomboids and biceps, than does a narrow grip pullup, or a chinup

and different exercises due to issues of lever length/mechanical advantage/failure of ancillary muscles have different sticking points, failure points, etc. that's why people can effectively use various exercises.

but, fwiw, the back is a very "wide area" (no pun intended) with a very large # of muscle groups. to work all of them sufficiently, one often can benefit from a large group of exercises. but i'm not sure it's 100% necessary, as i have seen some of the best backs ever on Olympic Style Weightlifters who only did 1) clean and Jerk and/or power clean or rack jerk 2) snatch and.or power snatch 3) squats

this is SUBOPTIMAL for hypertrophy, though, for a # of reasons (low reps, ROM issues, etc.)

but i disagree with your contention, for the reasons noted

you can't emphasize the lower lats, nor work them in a "greater" way, or however you want to say it

and again, there are LOTS of EMG studies on muscles. if it IS possible, it wouldn't be hard to construct an EMG study that would show this.

pecs? sure. and there is EMG proof

abs? ditto

lats? nope, and the reason why (imo) is because you CAN'T do an exercise that puts greater stress on the lower lats
 
It's an issue of physics and the focus center of force. By manipulating the range of a movement, you can shift the focus on different parts of the same muscle, lengthwise to an extent, but it's not really that black and white. I have seen different people that have various "tricks" that did seem to work, at least for them. Isokinetic angles were popular in the 80's for emphasis too.
 
I'm not sure I wanna post in the middle of this debate...


But anyways, I may have to switch to chest/back days also. Yesterday was chest day, all I did was inc bench, dips, & military press. Today my lats are almost as sore as my pecs, especially the area straight below my armpits. I'm pretty sure the DIPS are what fried them. This is really gonna screw w/ my schedule because I'm supposed to do chins & rows tomorrow.
 
jjjd said:
Andrew, your claim is bogus because exercises do not work in isolation.
Click to expand...
I agree that exercises do not work in isolation, but that does not mean isolation is not possible, correct?

jjjd said:
different back exercises work different muscles through different ROMS (and it is true that working a muscle through a shortened ROM preferentially strengthens the response (probably neural) closer to that ROM), and in different proportion
Click to expand...
This was my point.
jjjd said:
this is SUBOPTIMAL for hypertrophy, though, for a # of reasons (low reps, ROM issues, etc.)
Click to expand...
I certainly dont doubt this reasoning.

Please dont get me wrong, I am no "expert" by any stretch of the imagination. Compartmentalisation was something I had read about, something, IMO, that is plausible , and an idea I wanted to put out there for further discussion/opinions.
 
to clarify, i am not aware of any TRUE isolation exercice. iow, even exercises we think of as "isolation" ie barbell curls still work multiple muscle groups, some only isometrically, others through various roms

i think it is better to distinguish between single joint (biceps curls) vs. multijoint

some of the former are what we think of as isolation exercises.
 
Ok, heh, this thread died down but I'll just toss some wood on there (correct wood though :lol: )...

In theory it would be possible to cause isolated muscle fibers to hypertrophy. Unfortunately, in order to do this you would need to innervate that muscle fiber to the exclusion of all others. Relatively few nerves travel into each individual muscle to supply innervating impulses, and these nerves branch widely throughout the muscle fiber in a discontinuous pattern, so even if you only stimulated one nerve going into a muscle, you would still see general, rather than specific hypertrophy. Thus "shaping" a muscle is an obvious myth in practice. In the instance of a muscle with multiple insertions which are activated to various degrees based on the position of the joints (which alters the leverage of the muscle), "shaping" is possible but not in the sense of this particular argument, rather in the sense of relative hypertrophy of different heads or portions of the muscle, such as in the case of the upper pectoral and the triceps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top