[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
^^^Exactly. The idea of “optimum method” is ultimately destructive for progress. Use everything you can.
I would do DB rows deadstop until they got too heavy, and then move on to a more traditional row, and then onto one with more body english. Just use the method that hits your lats.[/quote]
Yeah that makes sense. Seems like a logical progression, too.
I really like inverted rows. They are very similar to rack chins from what I can tell, but I do them with my body completely horizontal so they work in the horizontal plane as a row, rather than in the vertical plane. I feel that I can get an incredible stretch at the bottom of each rep and a strong contraction at the top.
And I must add, on the Ben Bruno front, that I have used a bunch of his techniques to work round the various injuries and they are the real deal - definitely really helped me out. He for sure isn’t just some guy coming up with gimmicks to make articles out of.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
^^^Exactly. The idea of “optimum method” is ultimately destructive for progress. Use everything you can.
I would do DB rows deadstop until they got too heavy, and then move on to a more traditional row, and then onto one with more body english. Just use the method that hits your lats.[/quote]
Forgot to say cause I wasn’t logged in at the time but your lat activation vids were awesome.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I have never tried rack chins before, and though I know a lot of folks in the DC crowd are big on them, I can’t understand mechnically what would make them a better (or even different) option than weighted chins. Maybe they would be better trained unilaterally? That at least seems like something that would be harder to replicate without the rack set up.[/quote]
I have never done them either but here’s my take on why people use them.
The lats have a few origins but when we are talking about ‘rack chins’ we are interested in the thoracolumbar fascia and iliac crest as these sites are in a different orientation than they would otherwise be when doing a conventional chin or pull up. From the various videos of rack chins you’ll notice that the pelvis is in posterior pelvic tilt, which is accentuated at the bottom of the movement. The hip area also moves in an arc from top to bottom meaning the pelvis is slightly further ahead in the bottom position. All this contributes to a greater lat stretch at the bottom.
Try doing pull ups with your abbs contracted and your toes pointed just out in front of you and then in the bottom position bring your head through your arms so your ears are in line with your arms, then feel that stretch kick in! Rack chins emphasise this stretch because of the hip orientation at the bottom portion of the movement.
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
^^^Exactly. The idea of “optimum method” is ultimately destructive for progress. Use everything you can.
I would do DB rows deadstop until they got too heavy, and then move on to a more traditional row, and then onto one with more body english. Just use the method that hits your lats.[/quote]
Forgot to say cause I wasn’t logged in at the time but your lat activation vids were awesome.[/quote]
Thanks man. It was definitely something I wish I knew about when I started.
[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:
[quote]Cockburn wrote:
I was partially joking with the Frenchman. “Lots” is relative to the years of training experience one has. Also if a lower percentage of 1RM is used, more volume can be added.
[/quote]
I thought you were after I checked out your log 
Also, not French just live here.
I appreciate that “lots” is a vague and variable number, so I’ll provide a bit more info. For example, I’m training 5/3/1 and on OHP day I do 5x10 DB Row with 42kg and then 3x10 Pull-downs with 80kg, but I’m wondering if I’m doing enough volume or if I should add in some seated rows or whatever.
[/quote]
Duely noted 
If you had looked closer you would have seen that many of my upper body workouts have way more than 30 sets (closer to 60) since I superset everything. Half my log posts disappear so I got sick of attempting to keep up.
Like the others said (and most women would agree), more is better
For me, I’ve always felt that I developed thickness from Rowing, but lacked back width. I’ve rowed since I was 16 in some form or another, though never seriously like now. When I finally became serious about it I got to I think 305 for 3x8 on Barbell Rows. I still don’t feel my back is wide, but maybe I’m hoping for too much. I do think my back is respectably thick for where I am training-wise, and tapers up nicely when standing sideways (ie looking at me turned facing left/right) but I have to wonder if part of my upper body thickness is from doing back press a long long time ago.
I’m now prioritizing Pull-Ups as the second exercise in my workout, and contrary to what I used to do, am going for weighted Pull-Ups, not just bodyweight. I’ll report back in time if I see any progress in width. Everyone’s body is different so who knows.
Honestly I think bb rows are garbage for back development for most people. I think they are fun but I never got anything from them. Got up to 325x4x10 strict reps. Nothing
Wow, 410 reps at 325lbs… very nice! That’s like Hulk mode, even more impressive than the super volume Chins :P.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Wow, 410 reps at 325lbs… very nice! That’s like Hulk mode, even more impressive than the super volume Chins :P.[/quote]
Lol edited 325x4x10
In all seriousness… sorry that was too fun to avoid… I think Barbell Rows have their place much like the Bench Press. Its a true compound movement for the back. I may be stupid to consider the following, but I feel like a Dumbell Row - if done focusing on the lats, is more an isolated movement. Barbells are easier to microload and require you support the weight while its suspended in addition to rowing it.
I think a lot of folks have a difficult time utilizing a Barbell Row, because they don’t/can’t engage the lats with it. For many, its easier to feel the engaging doing a single hand Dumbell Row. For me, I always liked them (though may just for fun like you) and feel what back growth I do have that it has contributed - I never Dumbell Rowed at home but did at college and in gyms.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
In all seriousness… sorry that was too fun to avoid… I think Barbell Rows have their place much like the Bench Press. Its a true compound movement for the back. I may be stupid to consider the following, but I feel like a Dumbell Row - if done focusing on the lats, is more an isolated movement. Barbells are easier to microload and require you support the weight while its suspended in addition to rowing it.
I think a lot of folks have a difficult time utilizing a Barbell Row, because they don’t/can’t engage the lats with it. For many, its easier to feel the engaging doing a single hand Dumbell Row. For me, I always liked them (though may just for fun like you) and feel what back growth I do have that it has contributed - I never Dumbell Rowed at home but did at college and in gyms.[/quote]
I think most people go too heavy with barbell rows. When I see kids who are 150 lbs trying to barbell row as much as me I just shake my head.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
In all seriousness… sorry that was too fun to avoid… I think Barbell Rows have their place much like the Bench Press. Its a true compound movement for the back. I may be stupid to consider the following, but I feel like a Dumbell Row - if done focusing on the lats, is more an isolated movement. Barbells are easier to microload and require you support the weight while its suspended in addition to rowing it.
I think a lot of folks have a difficult time utilizing a Barbell Row, because they don’t/can’t engage the lats with it. For many, its easier to feel the engaging doing a single hand Dumbell Row. For me, I always liked them (though may just for fun like you) and feel what back growth I do have that it has contributed - I never Dumbell Rowed at home but did at college and in gyms.[/quote]
I got a pump, nice stretch full contraction from them but no growth
Yea, I don’t know, like I said, I have no “proof” but its the one back exercise I’ve been doing the longest and as I have grown I give credit to it as my platform to spring from.
I have a theory, and a theory mind you, that if you focus at a young age (ie pre-pubescent and shortly into puberty) on developing certain muscles, those muscles will in fact end up better developed than others. My reasoning? The body is an adaptable entity. Puberty is the one time in which your body makes a drastic change to its “final form.” If you direct your body in a certain manner then as your body is developing it will adapt even moreso to those stimuli.
I have absolutely no proof to this, but if I could take two twin males and set one to bodybuilding at age 13-14 (just basic stuff, nothing extreme) and one to running/sprinting it’d be interesting to see how different their forms are once they hit age 25 or so. 10 years of training sure, but how did their bodies adapt differently when essentially they started out with the same genetics and potential. I don’t think anyone is willing to lend me their children’s physical future though to test it out. I guess I could try my theory on mice, but I usually just feed them to my snakes… meh.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Yea, I don’t know, like I said, I have no “proof” but its the one back exercise I’ve been doing the longest and as I have grown I give credit to it as my platform to spring from.
I have a theory, and a theory mind you, that if you focus at a young age (ie pre-pubescent and shortly into puberty) on developing certain muscles, those muscles will in fact end up better developed than others. My reasoning? The body is an adaptable entity. Puberty is the one time in which your body makes a drastic change to its “final form.” If you direct your body in a certain manner then as your body is developing it will adapt even moreso to those stimuli.
I have absolutely no proof to this, but if I could take two twin males and set one to bodybuilding at age 13-14 (just basic stuff, nothing extreme) and one to running/sprinting it’d be interesting to see how different their forms are once they hit age 25 or so. 10 years of training sure, but how did their bodies adapt differently when essentially they started out with the same genetics and potential. I don’t think anyone is willing to lend me their children’s physical future though to test it out. I guess I could try my theory on mice, but I usually just feed them to my snakes… meh.[/quote]
I started skating when I was two. Playing hockey at 4 and playing year round at 10 to age 18…so there you go Now you know that lol
[quote]LoRez wrote:
For those who focus on rows, which variants do you seem to get the most from? Bent rows? Dead-stop/pendlay rows? One-arm DB Rows? T-bar Rows? Meadows Rows? [/quote]
Meadow/one-arm barbell variations>T-bar>dumbbell(sometimes they feel better than T-bar) I don’t like bent rows.
I get growth out of barbell rows, but they’re not nearly as safe on the spine as DB rows IMO
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
I get growth out of barbell rows, but they’re not nearly as safe on the spine as DB rows IMO[/quote]
I like T-bar rows and this happened to me some time ago, I don’t even think about barbell rows lol.
Ryan, you ever try Pendlay Rows?
For you guys saying you dont think rows contributed to width as much as chins/pulldowns(or in general), here is a question that I ask seriously. Back Width is from the latissimus dorsi while your upper back musculature is really made up of several muscles(rombiods, traps etc). So for those saying they get more growth/width from chins/pulldowns than rows, are you saying that rows do not simulate the Lats for growth, or that chins/pulldowns yeild more lat growth or that your lats can grow sideways and front to back(‘thickness’)? This is what I am not understanding.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Ryan, you ever try Pendlay Rows?
For you guys saying you dont think rows contributed to width as much as chins/pulldowns(or in general), here is a question that I ask seriously. Back Width is from the latissimus dorsi while your upper back musculature is really made up of several muscles(rombiods, traps etc). So for those saying they get more growth/width from chins/pulldowns than rows, are you saying that rows do not simulate the Lats for growth, or that chins/pulldowns yeild more lat growth or that your lats can grow sideways and front to back(‘thickness’)? This is what I am not understanding. [/quote]
My lower back is bad combined with poor mobility, pendlay rows and I don’t get along. I’d rather do overhand chest supported rows as I feel that’s a very similar movement in terms of muscle stimulation
The thought I believe is horizontal pulls (rows) for thickness and vertical pulls (pull ups ect) for width. I think that is overly simplistic but I do think those planes of movement will have the primary stimulation on muscle fibers in that plane parallel to the line of pull therefore will yield greatest growth there. But to say rows wont stimulate the lats for width I feel is wrong