Are bent over barbell rows sufficient for rear delt development?

"O&G, why don't you go copy Ron Coleman's training regime."

Why would I want to do that when I can follow your advice and weigh 156 pounds?

<Hitting the ignore button>
 
Sci, agreed, both are needed (even one's head is). You can roughly estimate work done by each of trap & lat work by looking at the distance moved: 3-4" for traps, 15-20" for lats. Enough score to call lats the prime mover.

By your logic, we might as well assign the 'prime mover' designation to the biceps. The bench is now clearly a tricep dominant movement as well.


You're misusing the term "work done", as well.
 
Nope, prime mover as I understand the term carries the most load to perform the movement. Traps don't apply in rows because their RoM is so limited.
 
(hint: they ARE absolutely required to perform the movement, it's just not them alone (or even for the most part) lifting the weight all the way up).
 
If you know so much, why are you still a skinny fat person at 32 years of age? It seems to me that you ought to be at least 180-195 pounds with a 32" waist and 16" or more arms.

When I used to work out at Mike Katz's. World Gym East, I once was pressing 120 DB's on an incline bench and a little fart with a big ego came and told me that I was should not go so deep. I put him in an a business sized envelope and sent him him off with 32 cents of postage to Baku. Was that you?

I am guessing that you are not married. And you never will be because all you want to do is argue. Hit the road shrimp boat.

You are on IGNORE because all you want to do is argue. That is pathetic. Lift more and eat correctly!

My apologies to the regulers on here for flaring up but I cannot bear this this little fruitcake anymore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you know so much, why are you still a skinny fat person at 32 years of age? It seems to me that you ought to be at least 180-195 pounds with a 32" waist and 16" or more arms.
You've overestimated my maximal naturally attainable lean (5% bf) weight by 22-37 lbs. See here for the why.

As for the rest, you obviously can't stand losing the argument, and that's why you start insulting others. Ok, if it would be mentally more relaxing for you, traps do move the load.
 
@Rihad - you haven't prevailed in the discussion. You clearly believe yourself to be correct, and there's no harm in that, but you still haven't proven your case. I, for one, am always willing to accept when I've been shown to be mistaken and would happily acknowledge it in this discussion. But you haven't done that. You argument is mere opinion and centred upon the range of motion. A simple comparison to an exercise such as the deadlift invalidates this premise. Any introduction of physics to the equation likewise destroys your argument.

Furthermore, your style of argument relies on quoting nobodies on the internet. Hell, if that was all it took to make a convincing viewpoint, I'd go and set-up a site under a false name. Martin/Lean Gains isn't an authority. Neither is Lyle, Alan Argon or Casey Butt. There's no supported scientific literature that actually describes the genetic potential based on phenotype development (height). You also aren't regarding bone density variance, hydration, genetic outliers etc.


You've exhibited a habit that Totentanz has accurately described several times. You also have a quote-happy approach to discussion that relies on opinions, and not data. This is why O&G is pissed off. It has nothing to do with the points of view, and everything to do with your inability to scientifically support your point of view.
 
You argument is mere opinion and centred upon the range of motion. A simple comparison to an exercise such as the deadlift invalidates this premise.

Why is that? Why don't we clear this argument up a bit. As I see it, there are now 2 separate issues: (1) principal role of middle traps in the BB rowing movement, and (2) whether or not traps bear the loading stimulus by not contracting/extending at all (isometric loading), such as in deadlifts. My answer to (2) is a definite yes: the simple fact of holding a weight strengthens muscles involved, and this includes one's grip strength, too. And, of course, the answer to (1) is that it's lats mainly moving the barbell up, because it's what they do, not because I think so. You can check how far your traps alone can lift the load by pulling them backwards ("shrugging" them backwards while bending over).
 
Again, you're centred on range of motion/


Regardless; this discussion is beyond infuriating, to say the least. And this time I'm going to try just a bit harder not to re-enter it.
 
Tot, Alex, Sci, O&G, how many of you guys are doing both a vertical and horizontal pull every workout? I usually alternate but my back is a weak point and maybe it is time to do both more frequently.
 
Tot, Alex, Sci, O&G, how many of you guys are doing both a vertical and horizontal pull every workout? I usually alternate but my back is a weak point and maybe it is time to do both more frequently.

I do both every time. The upper back is a complex group of muscles. You need at least two pulling movements, one vertical and one rowing type. It doesn't hurt to also throw in some rear laterals too.
 
Usually both but currently only doing neutral grip chins as an experiment in high volume (30+ sets per week). I spread them out over the day so no noticeable CNS fatigue. Usually 6-8 sets/day, 5 days per week. Results far exceeded my expectations. Finally hit my goal of a 48" inch chest, a 2" gain in 6 weeks. I was stuck at 46" for years. I guess I shocked the lats into growing again. Will continue through the summer and add considerable weight to bring the reps down to about 8 again and see if there is any growth left. May try this type of routine this winter for the traps.
 
That's very interesting O&G. So the high volume, high frequency is working well for your lats. It seems to me that some body parts grow better with high volume. Lats and calves both seem to need extra volume for me. They both don't get fatigued without a lot of volume either. Whereas shoulders and arms don't seem to need heavy volume to grow, and I usually get these muscles fatigued with just a few sets.
 
I had always had trouble getting my lats to where I thought they should be. They're genetically stubborn. I don't think smaller muscles would respond to this abuse very well. In fact, I don't expect my traps will respond well but I am going to give a go anyway. Everyone's body has its own set of keys.
 
Tot, Alex, Sci, O&G, how many of you guys are doing both a vertical and horizontal pull every workout? I usually alternate but my back is a weak point and maybe it is time to do both more frequently.

I tend to do a lot more rowing than chinning, although that's been reversed in the past. I find rows rely on biceps less and one-arm rows are as close to a 'whole back' activating exercises as there is, IMO.

That's very interesting O&G. So the high volume, high frequency is working well for your lats. It seems to me that some body parts grow better with high volume. Lats and calves both seem to need extra volume for me. They both don't get fatigued without a lot of volume either. Whereas shoulders and arms don't seem to need heavy volume to grow, and I usually get these muscles fatigued with just a few sets.

When lats 'fatigue', genuinely fatigue, the strength just goes. Your BW + 25kgs drops overnight to barely BW etc. My only concern for high volume using the lats is how hard it hits the elbow (due to biceps).

I'm thinking about experimenting with pullovers, using the pulldown machine and straight arms. I definitely prefer that to lying DB versions.
 
I did what O&G is talking about a while ago with push-ups and pull-ups. It was part of a powerlifting program and was called the 'frequency method'. Very similar to Pavel's 'Grease the groove'. I was doing 6 sets of 6 chins a day and 6 sets of 25 push-ups a day, spread out from morning to evening. Worked wonders on the lats. But, a word of warning. This is how I injured my shoulder. My non-expert opinion/diagnose is over-use. All that volume has a funny way of sneaking up on you. Same thing happened to a mate of mine at work, he only lasted a month or so before he canned it. And I started with very low volume and build up over time. I'm tempted to give it a go again with the chins, but I'd stay around 4sets or so with a maximum of 5 chins. And only on non-workout days. Still gives 80 chins a week.
 
Alex. I agree that regular chins with that volume would not be good for the elbows. However I found that neutral grip chins (hands facing each other) eliminate that problem. Of course you do need a special chin bar that allows you to perform chins (or are they pull ups? or maybe PIN UPS or CHILL UPS?) in this manner.

Try, you most likely were doing regular pull ups or chin ups which put a lot of pressure where the shoulder and biceps meet. That is an easy area to injure. Neutral chins pretty much eliminate that problem and spare the wrists and elbows as well. Also, I assume you are referring to 80 reps and not sets per week which I would still consider "normal" volume fopr a lat routine part of HST. Before adding weight, I hit up to 600 reps of chins per week. With 50 pounds added, I am now down to about 300 reps per week.

Engineering-wise, I did this by hanging a pretty nice heavy-duty, three-way chin bar bolted with 8-6"X3/8" lag bolts to a 12" solid beam over the doorway to my office which I am in and out of several times per day. My regular workouts are now about 15 minutes shorter because I do no other lat or bicep work and just doing a set of chins as I go in or out of my office does not even seem like working out.

However, I do recognize that this type of working out likely has to be short term in nature. My only concern is to see if I can hold the gains when I return to regular volume. I am attempting to help that along by concentrating the next 6 weeks on weight added and less metabolic-type reps. If anyone has suggestions other than that, I am all ears.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Try, you most likely were doing regular chins or pull ups which puts a lot of pressure where the shoulder and biceps meet. That is an easy area to injure. Neutral chins pretty much eliminate that problem and spare the wrists as well. Also, I assume you are referring to 80 reps and not sets per week which I would still consider "normal" volume. Before adding weight, I hit up to 600 chins per week. With 50 pounds added, I am now down to about 300 reps.

Wow, 600 chins per week? That's massive. Yeah I did mean I would get an added 80 reps per week plus my usual weighted ones. And I thought that was a lot... I hear you on the neutral grip. I did do mostly overhand pull-ups but I've got a set of rings which allows me to use a neutral grip which I will use if/when I pick up the frequency method again.
 
Back
Top