An argument about pullups vs. lat pulldowns came up at another forum, and the usual bro wisdom of "having to balance = good" came up. I wrote the following post in that context.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'll try to explain how this works. I also realize everyone will ignore the truth of my statements because I'm a skinny labcoat or whatever, but it's comforting knowing I'm correct
The reason a less stable exercise = "more nervous system involvement" compared to a more stable exercise is because the body itself is being called to help create stability. I think everyone is on the same page about this.
What's more, if you compare two different exercises at equivalent loading where one is stable and the other is less stable, the less stable one will show more recruitment of the prime movers.
However, it's also simultaneously true that less stability = direct inhibition of your prime movers by your brain. How can this be reconciled with the previous statement?
Simple - can you squat more with a barbell on your back on the ground or while standing on a bosu ball? The ground, obviously. Why? Because it's far more stable, and thus you are able to tap into a higher potential of the prime movers' (glutes, hamstrings, quads) force generating capacities. Your brain literally won't let you recruit those prime movers to their full potential if the movement is too unstable.
This is where zillions of people **** this up. Unless you intentionally lift lighter weights for fun, a more stable exercise = capacity for the main muscles that perform the movement to generate HIGHER levels of force. I.e. you can lift heavier **** the more inherently stable the movement is, and this is a direct product of the muscles performing the movement generating a higher % of their force producing abilities.
So the simple test is - what exercise allows you to move more weight through an equivalent ROM?
In the case of a pullup vs. lat pulldown, I doubt there's any enormous difference because even a pullup isn't that ******* unstable with a fixed bar, honestly.
If you want to test this principle out, compare your ability to dip with added weight on either a fixed dip station or using gymnastic rings.
You will be able to dip far more with the fixed dip station arms. Why? Because your CNS is inhibiting the prime movers (chest, shoulders, triceps) from doing their job in the gymnastic rings. You'll also notice your whole body shaking, initially, which is the "increased nervous system" stuff - i.e. more total muscles are attempting to "keep you still" due to the instability.
If you JUST use bodyweight, the gymnastic rings will be "more stimulating." However, you can EASILY overcome this by simply adding weight to the "normal" dips.
That, in short, is why the entire instability = good argument is absolute horse ****.</div>
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'll try to explain how this works. I also realize everyone will ignore the truth of my statements because I'm a skinny labcoat or whatever, but it's comforting knowing I'm correct
The reason a less stable exercise = "more nervous system involvement" compared to a more stable exercise is because the body itself is being called to help create stability. I think everyone is on the same page about this.
What's more, if you compare two different exercises at equivalent loading where one is stable and the other is less stable, the less stable one will show more recruitment of the prime movers.
However, it's also simultaneously true that less stability = direct inhibition of your prime movers by your brain. How can this be reconciled with the previous statement?
Simple - can you squat more with a barbell on your back on the ground or while standing on a bosu ball? The ground, obviously. Why? Because it's far more stable, and thus you are able to tap into a higher potential of the prime movers' (glutes, hamstrings, quads) force generating capacities. Your brain literally won't let you recruit those prime movers to their full potential if the movement is too unstable.
This is where zillions of people **** this up. Unless you intentionally lift lighter weights for fun, a more stable exercise = capacity for the main muscles that perform the movement to generate HIGHER levels of force. I.e. you can lift heavier **** the more inherently stable the movement is, and this is a direct product of the muscles performing the movement generating a higher % of their force producing abilities.
So the simple test is - what exercise allows you to move more weight through an equivalent ROM?
In the case of a pullup vs. lat pulldown, I doubt there's any enormous difference because even a pullup isn't that ******* unstable with a fixed bar, honestly.
If you want to test this principle out, compare your ability to dip with added weight on either a fixed dip station or using gymnastic rings.
You will be able to dip far more with the fixed dip station arms. Why? Because your CNS is inhibiting the prime movers (chest, shoulders, triceps) from doing their job in the gymnastic rings. You'll also notice your whole body shaking, initially, which is the "increased nervous system" stuff - i.e. more total muscles are attempting to "keep you still" due to the instability.
If you JUST use bodyweight, the gymnastic rings will be "more stimulating." However, you can EASILY overcome this by simply adding weight to the "normal" dips.
That, in short, is why the entire instability = good argument is absolute horse ****.</div>
