The only back exercises you need.

[Deleted member 123722]

I learned these "lat pull-ins" from Doug Brignole; this exercise truly fries the lats without using the rear delts and bicep assistance.


Moreover, this movement goes with the flow of the 45-fibers on the lats, pulling in toward the spine, rather from from the front of the body, which does not load the lats that efficiently compared to these. Pulling from the front involves too much rear delts, biceps, and forearms... you all feel this after heavy pull downs or bent over rows (I used to pull 365 x 6), and you back isn't really that fried... Doing these, you'll be fried as fuck, without the systematic fatigue from all the compounds and pulls from the front of your body.

After reading Doug's Brignoles book, and applying his ideas, I literally only do these two exercises for back now: lat pull ins and "scapular retractions" which act as a low row, but targets the middle traps and "upper" back. Both of these movements are shown in the video below. But I do the lat pull in from a higher angle

But because I hit back twice as week, I also do my own variation of these using the hammer strength machines, both the high row (supinated grip), and middle row (a hammer grip); all I do to make these more effective is angle my body in the chair at 45-degrees and pull in. Basically, every back movement should be pulling in from 45 degrees, rather than pulling back from the front.

So when I do my first back workout, I use the hammer machines with heavy weight; then workout two, I will use cable movements for variation. This isn't necessary, but I like doing more variation.

I only do 4 sets for each exercises (8 total) per session, and I hit back twice a week. (16 total sets).

If you don't believe me, try them yourselves.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_EKdWyOj7M&ab_channel=RenzoAlgieri

 

[Mac11wildcat]

So you never train the lats from even a remotely stretched position and think that two back exercises covers the complexity of movement this group of muscle is designed for?



wheres the photos of your insane back development?

 

[theotherguy]

I am not as intimately familiar with kinesiology as @Mac11wildcat is, but I know that doing the same movements all of the time will leave imbalances and weaknesses in the muscles that aren't trained directly or with enough intensity.

I know this because I used to do the same movements over and over for YEARS, and then I got a coach. He has me hitting all muscles from many different angles and a lot of my joint/muscle pains went away from correcting the imbalances. I am more mobile, agile, and well rounded now, in my 30's, than I was for about the last 5 years of my 20's, from this change in my training.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

So you never train the lats from even a remotely stretched position and think that two back exercises covers the complexity of movement this group of muscle is designed for?

View attachment 156429

wheres the photos of your insane back development?

well by "back" I really meant the lat width and thickness, and unfortunately, I can't edit the title of the post.

The lat pill ins train the entire lat effecitvely; the scapular retractions hit the middle trapezius (middle back") which creates that thickness. Both are from a stretched position.

The other muscles are trained with different exercises that Doug talks about in his book.

The back I built was literally copying Yates' style...I've only been doing Doug's stuff for 3 months now. But even with Dorians style, I've never felt my lats get raped like I do now, and that's become the compound movements work so many more muscles and restrict the full ROM of the lats, especially pull from the front.

I just had my wife snap this pic.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtFLSKc1Gv4&ab_channel=SmartTraining365Biomechanics



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ7Av7i_O9M&ab_channel=DougBrignole

 

[Deleted member 123722]

I am not as intimately familiar with kinesiology as @Mac11wildcat is, but I know that doing the same movements all of the time will leave imbalances and weaknesses in the muscles that aren't trained directly or with enough intensity.

I know this because I used to do the same movements over and over for YEARS, and then I got a coach. He has me hitting all muscles from many different angles and a lot of my joint/muscle pains went away from correcting the imbalances. I am more mobile, agile, and well rounded now, in my 30's, than I was for about the last 5 years of my 20's, from this change in my training.

Your lats don't have different angles...the fibers flow at a certain degree from its origin towards its insertion. And every muscle pulls from its origin. So the only angle the lats will effecively pull from is 45-degree on...when you pull from the front, you are actually using delts and other exercises to pull until the lats are able to pull inward from 45 degree. The lats are not pulling from 90 degrees.

For example, people think they can pick which head of the triceps they can hit with different angles and wrist positions, yet the triceps all merge to one tendon at the elbow. So when people asy they are going to do different exercises to hit different heads, all they are doing are redundent, and many times, risky and inefficient exercises, when they could have just done more of the best ones.

 

[theotherguy]

Your lats don't have different angles...the fibers flow at a certain degree from its origin towards its insertion. And every muscle pulls from its origin. So the only angle the lats will effecively pull from is 45-degree on...when you pull from the front, you are actually using delts and other exercises to pull until the lats are able to pull inward from 45 degree. The lats are not pulling from 90 degrees.

For example, people think they can pick which head of the triceps they can hit with different angles and wrist positions, yet the triceps all merge to one tendon at the elbow. So when people asy they are going to do different exercises to hit different heads, all they are doing are redundent, and many times, risky and inefficient exercises, when they could have just done more of the best ones.

Yea, after reading your other post, it makes a lot more sense that you're not referring to your back as a whole. The title is misleading, as you previously noted.

I think doing the same 2 exercises all of the time would be boring though.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Yea, after reading your other post, it makes a lot more sense that you're not referring to your back as a whole. The title is misleading, as you previously noted.

I think doing the same 2 exercises all of the time would be boring though.

It is boring lol, that's why I came up with two more using the hammer machines. But why would waste more time and energy doing exercises that are less effective and more prone to injury to spare yourself of boredom. Once you do these effective ones at maximum output, the pump and feeling will make up for boredom lol.

But you can come up with different exercises, so long as you apply the same physics, but they much check-off the 16 parameters Doug talks about in his book... Some of which are:

> Is the load pulling from opposite of the origin?
> Does the exercise start with the muscle elongated (it should)
> Does it follow the muscles strength curve?
etc.

In regards to angles, people think they are many angles to a muscle when there aren't. The only time a muscle has different "angles" is when it has many different origins and insertions, like the chest, or biceps, or like the entirely of the trapezius that has different fiber angles....But just because a muscle has several heads, like quads, triceps, or hamstrings, doesn't mean you can hit each one separately when they all merge into one tendon.

For example, the only triceps exercises I do now are lying hammer dumbell extensions, and one-arm cable pushdowns. It is boring, but these two exercises fry them more than the others, and don't hurt the joints as bad (barbell skull crushers or overhead dumbell). In fact, certain wrist position will tend to flare the elbows our and that actually interferes with the true ROM of the muscle, putting the load not in opposition to the muscle, and strain on the joints, which can all be avoided.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

But just think about with all the various exercises people do to hit a muscle, yet many of them are, firstly, less effective, secondly, redundant (achieves the same shit), and thirdly, injury prone.

For triceps, someone will do, dips (which mostly hits shoulders), rope push downs, then camber bar press downs, then overhead dumbbell extensions...all of which do literally the same thing, because you cannot isolate each of the triceps heads...and worst off, some of these movements put your elbows in a shitty position, which is why their joints ache. So why not just do 9 sets of lying hammer extensions, having both hands free instead stuck together on a bar, dumbbell, or rope?

Another example: the preacher curl is utterly worthless, yet people do it because it was popularized by Larry Scott thinking they can change their arms... but the fact is, you cannot isolate the lower part of your bicep, nor can change your 'peak' (that is genetic) nor elongate our biceps to change their shape (genetics). Even worse, they put your biceps in a very, very bad mechanical disadvantage, which is why people can easily tear their biceps doing them with a heavy enough weight, just like someone can tear their bicep doing deadlifts with one hand in supinated grip.

The biceps has ONE job, and that's to curl the forearm up, and that is easily replicated with a normal curl, and a hammer curl to hit the brachialis, (because that does have its own insertion). Yet people will do preachers, cable curls, spider curls, etc....but all you need is alternating dumbbell curl or cable curl, and then hammer curls. They THINK they need all crazy shit, because they naively believe hitting at every angle( even Mr. Os believe) and that's because everyone was taught these things without question...handed down as tradition, like the big three.

So there you have it, only two biceps exercises...but what about barbell curls? Well, they work, but they don't account for "bilateral deficit" where you have one arm stronger than the other; also, it locks your wrists in place, instead of them freely moving, which causes all other issues with form and other things. This goes with all barbell movements, and why dumbbells are superior a better ROM: Think of dumbell chest press vs barbell...

Doug's book goes into all this shit; it is so amazing actually, and the foreword has many respected inviduals from the industry, from Bill Pearl, to Lee Labrada, and even Dr. Squat (while Doug is against barbell squats lol).

I think everyone should get it, and at least apply the principles in there to some extent. And just to clarify, that doesn't mean NO other exercises works, but it is whether you're getting the best bang for your buck, not wasting your energy, and stimulating the muscle group the most efficiently as possible, while avoiding injury and taxing your CNS so you can come back and hit it again.

 

[koolio]

As an old timer I now do a few sets of across bench dbell pullovers followed by 3 sets of pulldowns...I alternate between wide grip and close grip with a v handle...

 

[Demondosage]

Thanks for sharing this and props for the photo posting!! Always good to have another tool in the box!!

 

[cfreetenor]

Wide grip pull ups and chin ups are a thing, I’ve tried something like these “pull ins” before and they feel kindof awkward in comparison.

I feel like if all of your back work is on one plane like that you won’t get as thick as you could.

Come to think of it, this is a bit like saying all you need are flies for the chest.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Wide grip pull ups and chin ups are a thing, I’ve tried something like these “pull ins” before and they feel kindof awkward in comparison.

I feel like if all of your back work is on one plane like that you won’t get as thick as you could.

Come to think of it, this is a bit like saying all you need are flies for the chest.

Chest has several different fiber directions; actually three. Lats are just one giant slab of meat that has fibers that go 45-degrees outward from the spine. The "middle/upper" back is just the trapezius. Most of the movements people do, are very redundant anyway. Someone will do a high row, and then a low row, thinking they can hit the "upper and lower" lats, when there are no higher or lower lats... I see it all the time with bodybuilders who say " yea you need to do more lower lat work to bring your lats down!"... Well, that's not possible if you're insertions aren't low.

A Lat pull own will work your back, but also rear delts, and not load your lats 100% efficiently, because only at the very end of the movement are your lats pulling in toward the spine after the rear delts pull your humerus back.

 

[cfreetenor]

But just think about with all the various exercises people do to hit a muscle, yet many of them are, firstly, less effective, secondly, redundant (achieves the same shit), and thirdly, injury prone.

For triceps, someone will do, dips (which mostly hits shoulders), rope push downs, then camber bar press downs, then overhead dumbbell extensions...all of which do literally the same thing, because you cannot isolate each of the triceps heads...and worst off, some of these movements put your elbows in a shitty position, which is why their joints ache. So why not just do 9 sets of lying hammer extensions, having both hands free instead stuck together on a bar, dumbbell, or rope?

Another example: the preacher curl is utterly worthless, yet people do it because it was popularized by Larry Scott thinking they can change their arms... but the fact is, you cannot isolate the lower part of your bicep, nor can change your 'peak' (that is genetic) nor elongate our biceps to change their shape (genetics). Even worse, they put your biceps in a very, very bad mechanical disadvantage, which is why people can easily tear their biceps doing them with a heavy enough weight, just like someone can tear their bicep doing deadlifts with one hand in supinated grip.

The biceps has ONE job, and that's to curl the forearm up, and that is easily replicated with a normal curl, and a hammer curl to hit the brachialis, (because that does have its own insertion). Yet people will do preachers, cable curls, spider curls, etc....but all you need is alternating dumbbell curl or cable curl, and then hammer curls. They THINK they need all crazy shit, because they naively believe hitting at every angle( even Mr. Os believe) and that's because everyone was taught these things without question...handed down as tradition, like the big three.

So there you have it, only two biceps exercises...but what about barbell curls? Well, they work, but they don't account for "bilateral deficit" where you have one arm stronger than the other; also, it locks your wrists in place, instead of them freely moving, which causes all other issues with form and other things. This goes with all barbell movements, and why dumbbells are superior a better ROM: Think of dumbell chest press vs barbell...

Doug's book goes into all this shit; it is so amazing actually, and the foreword has many respected inviduals from the industry, from Bill Pearl, to Lee Labrada, and even Dr. Squat (while Doug is against barbell squats lol).

I think everyone should get it, and at least apply the principles in there to some extent. And just to clarify, that doesn't mean NO other exercises works, but it is whether you're getting the best bang for your buck, not wasting your energy, and stimulating the muscle group the most efficiently as possible, while avoiding injury and taxing your CNS so you can come back and hit it again.

The biceps does more than flex the forearm, it is also responsible for a certain amount of rotation upward in the shoulder when the arm is supine. I’m not sure the exact mechanical language of this function, but it’s one of the principles behind the Arnold press.

Cable rows are generally thought of as a back exercise, but depending on how you emphasize the peak contraction they can also be very good for the biceps. You can load it more than you can curls, but the last bit of the movement is essentially the biceps doing most of their work in peak contraction to move more weight than you’d ever be able to with a curl. Is this sacrificing ROM? Well no, the cable row is a complete exercise, but it serves to demonstrate how different muscles come into tension at different times for different movements, and each of these present a unique stimulus.

So yes, it can be profitable to load a muscle with constant tension throughout a full ROM. This is why we do isolation. But there are exercises where full ROM involves different muscles to different degrees, and for different functions.

 

[cfreetenor]

Chest has several different fiber directions; actually three. Lats are just one giant slab of meat that has fibers that go 45-degrees outward from the spine. The "middle/upper" back is just the trapezius. Most of the movements people do, are very redundant anyway. Someone will do a high row, and then a low row, thinking they can hit the "upper and lower" lats, when there are no higher or lower lats... I see it all the time with bodybuilders who say " yea you need to do more lower lat work to bring your lats down!"... Well, that's not possible if you're insertions aren't low.

A Lat pull own will work your back, but also rear delts, and not load your lats 100% efficiently, because only at the very end of the movement are your lats pulling in toward the spine after the rear delts pull your humerus back.

If you limit your range of motion to keep your shoulders completely packed (much harder to do with pull ups, but pretty easy with pull downs), it will pretty much be exclusively your lats moving concentrically. Rear delts and upper back more isometric. In fact, packing your shoulders is probably the difference in lat work generally rather than any one specific exercise.

The same principle applies with chest, though, albeit with the exception of varying the moment arm a bit on your flies.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

If you limit your range of motion to keep your shoulders completely packed (much harder to do with pull ups, but pretty easy with pull downs), it will pretty much be exclusively your lats moving concentrically. Rear delts and upper back more isometric. In fact, packing your shoulders is probably the difference in lat work generally rather than any one specific exercise.

The same principle applies with chest, though, albeit with the exception of varying the moment arm a bit on your flies.

problem with this is, the resistance/load is not directly opposite of the lat's fibers; in order for it to be, each hand must pull from a 45-degree angle, not be locked on a bar which is pulling a load from 90 degrees from the front. Again, this will load the lats with only 50% of the load, when you could get 100% if you pulled from 45 degree.

 

[cfreetenor]

problem with this is, the resistance/load is not directly opposite of the lat's fibers; in order for it to be, each hand must pull from a 45-degree angle, not be locked on a bar which is pulling a load from 90 degrees from the front. Again, this will load the lats with only 50% of the load, when you could get 100% if you pulled from 45 degree.

Muscle fibers express their pull on the fulcrum of the joint, they don’t just pull directly on the weight. If your kinesiology were sound here than no one would ever do any pressing movements.

In fact with squats, it’s generally accepted that full ROM is superior for quad hypertrophy, for instance, and full ROM squats entail going through the point where the fibers in the different quad muscles are essentially perpendicular to the bar path.

Muscles are inserted different ways and can express force on multiple different kinds of leverages depending on the joints they attach to.
In fact, lats probably get a better peak contraction on pull downs than pull ins because of this.

 

[Megadick3000]

.

The biceps has ONE job, and that's to curl the forearm up, and that is easily replicated with a normal curl, and a hammer curl to hit the brachialis, (because that does have its own insertion). Yet people will do preachers, cable curls, spider curls, etc....but all you need is alternating dumbbell curl or cable curl, and then hammer curls. They THINK they need all crazy shit, because they naively believe hitting at every angle( even Mr. Os believe) and that's because everyone was taught these things without question...handed down as tradition, like the big three.

drifting off the original topic here, but traditional hammer curls are crap for the brachialis in my experiences. If you have never tried before, consider doing cross-body hammer curls, google for videos showing how. In my experiences cross body hammer curls activate the brachialis way better than traditional up/down hammer curls which i find activate the forearms more than anything.

Regarding the lat movement this threads about. I tried these in the past, but i never found the form to really get the most of them. I should re visit them and experiment with form to find the optimal plain of movement, as when i tried they never lit my lats up as much as i was expecting but i think my plain of movement wasnt optimal.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

drifting off the original topic here, but traditional hammer curls are crap for the brachialis in my experiences. If you have never tried before, consider doing cross-body hammer curls, google for videos showing how. In my experiences cross body hammer curls activate the brachialis way better than traditional up/down hammer curls which i find activate the forearms more than anything.

Regarding the lat movement this threads about. I tried these in the past, but i never found the form to really get the most of them. I should re visit them and experiment with form to find the optimal plain of movement, as when i tried they never lit my lats up as much as i was expecting but i think my plain of movement wasnt optimal.

I do them in a few different ways:

1.) I will use a hammer strength high row machine, sit on it side ways but 45 degrees, and pull with one arm with a supinated grip, making sure the movement is 45 degree inward...

So picture me using the same machine this guy is below; my right hand will be pulling where his is, however, my right leg will be on the other side so I'm sitting on the machine at an angle and you'd be able to see my back



but not like this guy; this is too much


2.) I will use a cable pulley. and pull in from a 45 degree angle, either from a knelling position, or sitting if I have a bench.

3.) I also experimented with doing them by bending over as if I were doing a cable pull over, but pulling inward one arm at a time

 

[Elvis755]

I bought the book when I hurt my pec after seeing Brignole on a Mark Bell podcast. I think there’s value in it but at the same time he’s trying to sell an idea as much as any other trainer. His explanation of having no pec insertions on your chin so incline pressing movements do nothing or close to nothing to stimulate your pecs I have a difficult time agreeing with.

Ultimately I have to enjoy training, I didn’t find much enjoyment in going in and spending the majority of my work out at a freemotion station. I took some of the ideas and worked them into what I do. Recently I’ve seen he’s done some powerlifting seminars which I’ve been meaning to watch because he directly opposes all of the lifts required for the sport so I’m curious how he fits his ideas into it.

Most of the people associated with the Brig20 and stuff aren’t that big from what I’ve seen in his videos. Even Doug in his prime was using more traditional exercises I think to build the physique that he had earlier in his competitive career.