Who said he shouldnt express his opinion? The criticism that I have is to provide some justification for it. again, address specific advantages of closed chain vs open chain and respond to the names listed by donut who got pretty freakin strong using pulldowns.
I’m all in favor of Pull-Ups instead of Pull-Downs, but try to tell Kevin Nee that pull-downs don’t work.
-dizzle
PRETTY MUCH, IMO
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
BigBen72 wrote:
C’mon, this was directed at all those dudes at the gym who do 20 sets of behind the neck pulldowns wearing their mesh lifting gloves, a sweet pair of zebra stripe zubas and black tank top with their wrist wraps wrapped around the pulldown bar, listening to the best of Quiet Riet on their Walkman Cassete player.
Unless you are ‘that guy’ don’t get all bent. If you are, cut your mullet and do some chin ups, dammit.
how many of “those guys” are reading this website, or mike boyle for that matter?[/quote]
Probably none. But his rant was entertaining, and I kind of think that was the point.
Closed chain upperbody exercises are supposed to be better because they involve the rotator cuff to a greater degree.
[quote]rmccart1 wrote:
As was mentioned before, it’s important to realize whom Boyle wrote the article for. Not powerlifters and bodybuilders. He’s dead-on for team athletes and, in my opinion, everybody else. Not that you can’t get good results from pulldowns, but whole-body strength and coordination are improved more by pull-ups.[/quote]
I disagree strongly. You sound like the BOSU and ‘functional training’ dorks. Because someone plays a team sport they should choose to do one back exercise over another? ‘Whole body strength and coordination?’ What does that even mean?
You’re telling me that if I’m a football player, doing pullups instead of using a machine that closely replicates the movement will somehow improve my sports skills? Why? Why should I not do pulldowns? Why do the musclebuilding movements that work for powerlifters and bodybuilders not work for me?
[quote]BigBen72 wrote:
listening to the best of Quiet Riet on their Walkman Cassete player. [/quote]
Don’t be talking shit about quiet riot.
I do pullups only coz it looks HARDCORE! HELL YEAH!!! [/sarcasm]
[quote]BigBen72 wrote:
Closed chain upperbody exercises are supposed to be better because they involve the rotator cuff to a greater degree.
[/quote]
See now THAT would be interesting, but it still doesnt answer why other (lower body) closed chain exercises are inherently “better” than their open-chain counter parts. In fact, i’m really starting to doubt that “closed-chain is better than open-chain” is even true.
I havent found ONE bit of evidence to suggest that. That’s not to go all counter intuitive and suggest that leg presses = squats - I think it’s relevant to note that a squat requires great stabilization AND will incorporate the low back more. But other than a rock climber or a gymnast, what inherent advantage is gained from pullups?
Pull-ups are better than Pull-downs because there is a greater neuro-muscular training effect felt with closed-chain exercises where the lifter moves their body around the bar instead of moving their bar around their body.
Because of this, pull-ups will teach your muscle and central nervous system to be stronger. Pull-downs do not do as good of a job at this. Greater strength gains and greater muscle activation = bigger muscle.
Lat Pulldowns also allow you to cheat much more than Pull-ups do.
Wait… so which is what???
Upperbody hands not moving (ie pull up) = what kinda chain?
Upperbody hands moving (ie pulldown) = different chain??
Are these the same chains you use when benching and squatting??
Could I use bands instead?
Closed band versus open band. Does that work?
How do I incorporate a circa-max phase???
why does everything have to be either or ? why can’t you use both ? throwing away a perfectly good tool because you can’t figure out how to use it seems more like “mental weakness” to me.
and who cares anyway ? isn’t the point of lifting to gain physical strength ? do you really think that pullups, or any exercise , really figure into the equation of making one athlete mentally stronger than another ? sounds like someone’s watched one 2 many rocky movies.
pullups really aren’t that hard. especially when you’re under 200.
Here is the link to the original article, 6 Thinks I Really Dislike By Mike Boyle
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1389282
Here is Boyle’s answer as to why he likes chinups better, frome the article discussion.
MytchBucanan wrote:
Very good article! I especially like the part about squats.
I do somewhat disagree about the chin-up being harder than a pulldown. It really depends on the weight being used.
If a 200 lb person is using 200 lbs on a pull down, than what is the actual difference? I never understood this argument. The movement is exactly the same.
I havent done pulldowns in a while, but what I tend to dislike about chins is the tendency to swing like a pendulum.
mboyle wrote:
Couple of reasons
1- How do you know 200 is 200?
2- How often do you see someone using weights in excess of bodyweight? I have 300 lbers doing triples with a 45 plate. Tough to do on a pulldown machine.
3- There is something I don’t like about the body being stuck between the machine and the bar. Not sure what it is but, I think it creates a lesss natural pulling motion.
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
Pulldowns and Chin-ups are different
exercises. They’re both pretty good.
If you think Pulldowns are bad, then what
about Cable Rows? I really don’t see much
of a difference between Cable Rows and Lat-Pulldowns
other than one being horizontal and another being vertical.
But I doubt you have the same low opinion of cable rows
that you hold for pulldowns. So, what is the big difference?
[/quote]
Being serious here, I’d say it’s because, as you said, It’s a different plane of movement. There’s no bodyweight exercise that can hit lats horizontally except inverted rows, which don’t do a hell of a lot, seeing as you’re pulling 2/3 of your bw. Now you could argue bent BB rows vs cable, but that’s a whole different topic. that’s my opinion.
[quote]swivel wrote:
why does everything have to be either or ? why can’t you use both ? throwing away a perfectly good tool because you can’t figure out how to use it seems more like “mental weakness” to me.
and who cares anyway ? isn’t the point of lifting to gain physical strength ? do you really think that pullups, or any exercise , really figure into the equation of making one athlete mentally stronger than another ? sounds like someone’s watched one 2 many rocky movies.
pullups really aren’t that hard. especially when you’re under 200.[/quote]
True. When I was under two hundy I could bang out a dozen or so pullups for several sets. Now I can do maybe two and I found out the other day that I couldn’t scale a small wall, so I suppose I’ll add some pullups back in.
I don’t understand why everyone has to be either/or about things. Why can’t you do things the way you want and I’ll do mine, instead of insisting everyone do the same thing.
Do we really need half a dozen multi bind studies to figure this out? Firstly for one to consider themselves a strength athlete they should work to master their bodyweight, personally I would be slightly embarrased to squat 800 and only do a few chin-ups.
Fact of the matter is if you can squat that much but can’t do alot of chins then you’re upper back will eventually become a problem, if it isn’t already and that will begin to effect your bench press. So why not chin/pull up? Those who think calisthenics are just for rock climbers and the military have some reading too do.
Anyone who has completly mastered their bodyweight can add weight with a vest or dip belt, those who haven’t can do assisted pull-ups with a band.
In my experiance pull down machines are unreliable, with a varying numbers of rollers/levers that give you an false perception of the actual resistance, and even when it is correct theres rarely enough weight on the stack.
[quote]BigBen72 wrote:
mboyle wrote:
Couple of reasons
1- How do you know 200 is 200?
2- How often do you see someone using weights in excess of bodyweight? I have 300 lbers doing triples with a 45 plate. Tough to do on a pulldown machine.
3- There is something I don’t like about the body being stuck between the machine and the bar. Not sure what it is but, I think it creates a lesss natural pulling motion.
[/quote]
At least this addresses the issue of pullup vs pulldown superiority with REASONS. #1 is legitimate, given the different number of pulleys, etc that can affect resistance.
On the other hand, as long as youre using the same machine, who cares what teh “actual” resistance is, as long as progress is being made #2 I dont buy. I take his word for it that he has 300#ers doing triples with a 45# plate, but why is that so hard to replicate with a plate loaded machine?
Or for smaller guys, even a pin loaded would provide enough resistance. It doest address the issue of why a 3RM on a pullup is better than a 3RM on a pulldown. In fact, for the suggestion that you can just add weight to your pullups … weight vests are expensive, and if your gym doesnt have a dip belt you’d have to buy a length of chain and make sure to bring a belt in with you on back day.
the KISS principle would suggest just using a heavy lat pulldown. #3, ironically is the reason that I have the least difficulty with. At least he’s honest about going with his gut, wiht is something I trust more than “studies”
For the record, I agree with everyone who has said “why not do both?” I’d be arguing just as hard if someone had written that a pulldown is superior to a pullup.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
BigBen72 wrote:
mboyle wrote:
Couple of reasons
1- How do you know 200 is 200?
2- How often do you see someone using weights in excess of bodyweight? I have 300 lbers doing triples with a 45 plate. Tough to do on a pulldown machine.
3- There is something I don’t like about the body being stuck between the machine and the bar. Not sure what it is but, I think it creates a lesss natural pulling motion.
At least this addresses the issue of pullup vs pulldown superiority with REASONS. #1 is legitimate, given the different number of pulleys, etc that can affect resistance. On the other hand, as long as youre using the same machine, who cares what teh “actual” resistance is, as long as progress is being made #2 I dont buy. I take his word for it that he has 300#ers doing triples with a 45# plate, but why is that so hard to replicate with a plate loaded machine? Or for smaller guys, even a pin loaded would provide enough resistance. It doest address the issue of why a 3RM on a pullup is better than a 3RM on a pulldown. In fact, for the suggestion that you can just add weight to your pullups … weight vests are expensive, and if your gym doesnt have a dip belt you’d have to buy a length of chain and make sure to bring a belt in with you on back day. the KISS principle would suggest just using a heavy lat pulldown. #3, ironically is the reason that I have the least difficulty with. At least he’s honest about going with his gut, wiht is something I trust more than “studies”
For the record, I agree with everyone who has said “why not do both?” I’d be arguing just as hard if someone had written that a pulldown is superior to a pullup.
[/quote]
I agree with what you’re saying for the most part. This is one of those circumstance where experiance and gut trump the very few studies and theories that exist on this topic.
I’m doubtfull that anyone could have a problem with adding an external weight source to their pull-up:
-dumbbell between the feet
-weight vest
-dip belt
-band wrapped around feet and attached to floor
-one arm pull-up
…the list goes on. Very few are even read to add an external source to their pull-up, I would be willing to bet that no more then 5-10% of the gym population who trains consistantly 2 or more times a week can do 12 pull-ups from a dead hang.
[quote]Power GnP wrote:
…the list goes on. Very few are even read to add an external source to their pull-up, I would be willing to bet that no more then 5-10% of the gym population who trains consistantly 2 or more times a week can do 12 pull-ups from a dead hang.
[/quote]
This is a fair point and sort of renders moot both his point #2, as well as my responses to them.
[quote]I’m doubtfull that anyone could have a problem with adding an external weight source to their pull-up:
-dumbbell between the feet
-weight vest
-dip belt
-band wrapped around feet and attached to floor
-one arm pull-up[/quote]
While there are criticisms against these exercises, it would probably devolve into semantics. I do think however, that rather than buying a new piece of equipment (vest, band, dip belt, etc) or limiting the wieght that could be added to only those weights which your feet could successfully hold, it might be just as reasonable (and considerably simpler) to say "well,
my sets of 12 on teh chins are getting easy, lets see how much I could do on this lat pulldown. as you pointed out tho, the number of people in the gym who would be honestly able to make such a comment are relatively few.
Unless you are a rockclimber there is nothing remotely sport specific about either exercise. Both are just general strength exercises for upper back. For this reason, I doubt it makes one iota of difference which you use.
Personally I prefer weighted pullups because:
1 - At my gym the chinup bar is usually free, whereas the lat pulldown is always being used.
2 - Weighted pullups are more fun
3 - If you use much more than BW on pulldowns, it can be painful on your legs
my question is if all of these people can do perfect form strict pulldowns at bodyweight, why not do pullups? a pullup bar is not as expensive or large as a lat pulldown machine. i got a pullup bar in my doorway and crank out 5 everytime i leave and enter the room. its whatever floats your boat.
the only differences i see between the two is the ease of doing alot of weight on the pulldown.
but ask yourselves, whats more badass cranking out 20 dead hang pullups or doin 20 reps of 200 pounds on the pulldown? id say the pullups