Ok I’ve covered the fat loss part now I want a tad more muscle in the upper lat area. The rest of my back is strong AF, maybe not ripped but fairly good size and strong. Upper lat area isn’t big and I want to add just a little bulk there for aesthic reasons only. Naturally added strength is always nice so I’ll take the package :).
What’s the very best way to build that?
Currently for back I do seated rows, then a pull down with a rope from a high pulley while sitting on the floor, and just started shoulder width supinated grip lat pulldowns.
What to add for the upper lat area?
Thank you!
Maybe a portion of this is your inability to slip your scapula that spreads your lats more.
A wide grip pulldown (or pullup) might help. But one key is to feel your scapula spread, so the lighter pulldown will allow you to feel the spread.
Sorry, I should’ve specified latissimus dorsi
1 Like
My scapula spread? Without being injured? This is a desirable thing and why?
Please explain this?
Thx
It is how bodybuilders show wide lats doing a lat spread pose and a double biceps pose. This is only done when the lower portion of your scapula rotate outward from the centerline of your body, pushing your lats wider than they are.
Conversely a most muscular pose you rotate the scapula inward and upward to push your traps higher up your neck.
This takes some muscle control and practice. It is much easier to show than put into words (at least for me.) I’m not saying everyone can learn this, but if you can allow the scapula to “open” up as the bar nears the top of a wide grip pulldown, you can feel the scapula moving.
To answer your question:
Lat pull-down
Chest supported hammer strength Row
Kroc Row
But trying to target a specific part of just one muscle doesn’t really work. The muscle will grow regardless, just not in specific areas.
2 Likes
About all you can affect is the volume of the muscle. The bigger it gets the more space it will take. The muscle will increase size and also grow where you want.
A similar worry people have is lack of symmetry. The best cure for that is more muscle everywhere. More size fills in symmetrically everywhere, making the entire physique look more symmetrical.
1 Like
Excuse the shitty image, but maybe you can see athlean x pointing to his lat. And right above that is the Teres. Major? Minor? Whichever. In the olden tymes, they called the teres the Upper Lat.
Theoretically you can hit it with medium width, overhand pulldowns, pulling to the level of your chin.
The serratus wall slide is a common drill to practice getting your scapulas moving.
1 Like
This.
Hypertrophy of the teres major is the reason people think wide pullups make you “wide”.
We need to keep our yes and ears open!
I think the research will soon verify that you can target different ends or the middle of muscles.
To what extent? Can high calves be targeted to get full and low? Can short biceps approach the look of Larry Scott biceps?
I am much less optimistic that much will be found statistically effective to changing muscle shape. IMI, mass will be the best cure for improving shape.
2 Likes
I’m willing to listen, but science has, on average, been 50 years behind the HIT community.
Hamstrings are one of the very few exceptions we know to be true (because they have a relationship with more than one joint).
1 Like
I don’t know to what extent, but to the extent that it’s statistically significant and verifiable.
Let Arthur Jones be your guide! Look how hard he worked to build a machine that would target the biceps in the overhead, flexed position to compliment the stretched out preacher curl position.
1 Like
I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not, but thank you for the chuckle either way
1 Like
Not sarcasm, total truth.
You love stretch mediated partials. They’re the hot new (but old thing) that awesome for growth. So they will be researched a lot. I expect that by summer time we’ll have more data, that verifies the data we already have, that says they work 1 end of the muscle better than the other.
And soon after that we’ll get the data that shortened partials work the other end better.
1 Like
Well, I’m doubtful we will see the same result off short-length partials as we do with long-length partials, mostly because the mechanics of it (long-length partials are not far off from occlusion/KAATSU training) just don’t work the same if not stretched, but I’d be interested to find out.
Honestly, I’m a bit more doubtful that we’ll see a significant variance in the development of either end of a muscle as the load does not change across the total length of the muscle fibers.
But I genuinely appreciate the theory; I haven’t heard anything thought provoking recently until this and I thank you for that.
P.S I hope you are right in your theories, I’m just doubtful. Please tag me if/when you hear anything regarding this.
1 Like
I’ll be looking, so stick around for updates.
But until we get some proof, just for fun, try some partial reps on the pec dec. Focus on just the top half, hands together, squeezie part of the lift. As you approach failure, see if you feel an occlusion like sensation.
1 Like
I just feel compelled to add my thoughts. Yes Arthur Jones built machines.
All weight lifting machines have internal resistance. This resistance makes the concentric more difficult and the eccentric easier. This is exactly opposite of the desired resistance. Free weights add zero resistance to the concentric and zero to the eccentric. The only reason to use (or even “invent”) a machine is because the free weight cannot adequately activate the muscle through its range of motion. The Nautilus Pullover Machine does an excellent job approaching an effective pullover.
That said the initial Nautilus Pullover Machine was cable driven and plate loaded to pivot. The internal resistance was as minimal as could be designed. A very good machine.
But what “devolved” from there is more about marketing Nautilus equipment than attacking the muscle effectively. Jones added a weight stack and made it chain driven. Those chain machines remind me of riding a cogwheel train. Pure garbage. Sure it saved on cable replacement, but at the cost of effectiveness.
Jones had made a great product for one full cycle circuit training. There was a gym in town that ran their clients like an assembly line. Did they ever produce some amazing physiques.
I tried Jones’ weight training philosophy as best I knew how, and managed to get weaker in my bench press.
My best results were made with free weights whenever possible and occasional machines where necessary (no chain driven). Hammer and Strive (plate loaded) provided the best machines with the least internal resistance. There is nothing like the Strive Leg Extension.
BTW, the only thing chains are good for is accommodating resistance.
Well… I feel a little better.
2 Likes