The key to back width

[timmy47]

ive always been wondering what the best way to build back width is. it seems that most people think "wide grip for wide back". while looking at the anatomy of the back, this doesnt seem to be true. if wide grip pullups work the "upper lats" then where are they? according to the image, the "upper lats", as it would seem, are actually mostly made up of the Teres Major, and the Infraspinatus. the lat does go all the way up to the delts but its not like there is an upper head of the lattisimus dorsi.

if you look at the picture, you can see where the muscle actually is the most, is near the lower/middle back. so im thinking, wouldnt movements like deadlifts and rows do more for you lats than pullups? im not saying get rid of then all together but it seems like people get too cought up on doing those. in my experience, v handle pulldowns, barbell rows, and v handle cable rows did more for my lats then pullups. i actually felt it more in all of my lats with those and got a better pump. even when i dead lift i get a bit of a pump in my lats.

so im thinking that if you put more effort into movements that add mass like rows and deads, wouldnt you get wide? seeing as there are no "heads" to the lats, wouldnt the logical answer be that putting on lat mass will add mass on all of the lat?

please post comments, thoughts, experiences, and any other anatomy type answers as i am not an expert.

[timmy47]

for a better look, go here...

http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus409.html

[.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.]

I find that close grip chins and rows hit the lower back more and that wide grip chins hit the upper lats more. I Have always wondered why you don;t hear ppl talking about the teres major more because it seems as thought it makes up a large part of V-shape of the back.... You make a good point. I find bent rows hit the lower part of the traps really hard as well as the teres major.. idk .. the back is harder to "feel" working than other bodyparts in my opinion..

[W8isGR8]

Because the lats are a convergant muscle, the fibers are arranged in a "fan" shape. This allows for greater range of movement(similar to the pecs). This also means that different lines of pull affect different muscle fibers. To figure out what fibers to hit hardest, find an exercise that mimics that line of pull as closely as possible.

[_Dominik_]

Originally Posted by timmy47

please post comments, thoughts, experiences, and any other anatomy type answers as i am not an expert.

Have a read through this article explaining those muscles in detail. There's no question that they contribute to overall upper back width just below the delts, especially the teres major.

We've all seen Ronnie's back a million times so check out this photo of a guy named Joel Stubs. There's more than "lat width" going on there.

[W8isGR8]

Originally Posted by _Dominik_

Have a read through this article explaining those muscles in detail. There's no question that they contribute to overall upper back width just below the delts, especially the teres major.

We've all seen Ronnie's back a million times so check out this photo of a guy named Joel Stubs. There's more than "lat width" going on there.

Yeah, you can see where the lats end, and how they're being pushed out by other muscles. I argued this point months ago when I first got here, explaining that the width was from muscles like the teres major, and the thickness was from the lower back muscles(which run all the way up the spine) pushing the lats out.

[DiamondDelts]

Originally Posted by _Dominik_

Have a read through this article explaining those muscles in detail. There's no question that they contribute to overall upper back width just below the delts, especially the teres major.

We've all seen Ronnie's back a million times so check out this photo of a guy named Joel Stubs. There's more than "lat width" going on there.

Bows down and worships Pilot Widebody.

[DiamondDelts]

Originally Posted by timmy47

ive always been wondering what the best way to build back width is. it seems that most people think "wide grip for wide back". while looking at the anatomy of the back, this doesnt seem to be true. if wide grip pullups work the "upper lats" then where are they? according to the image, the "upper lats", as it would seem, are actually mostly made up of the Teres Major, and the Infraspinatus. the lat does go all the way up to the delts but its not like there is an upper head of the lattisimus dorsi.

if you look at the picture, you can see where the muscle actually is the most, is near the lower/middle back. so im thinking, wouldnt movements like deadlifts and rows do more for you lats than pullups? im not saying get rid of then all together but it seems like people get too cought up on doing those. in my experience, v handle pulldowns, barbell rows, and v handle cable rows did more for my lats then pullups. i actually felt it more in all of my lats with those and got a better pump. even when i dead lift i get a bit of a pump in my lats.

so im thinking that if you put more effort into movements that add mass like rows and deads, wouldnt you get wide? seeing as there are no "heads" to the lats, wouldnt the logical answer be that putting on lat mass will add mass on all of the lat?

please post comments, thoughts, experiences, and any other anatomy type answers as i am not an expert.

I began widening myself out by concentrating on hitting the upper lats and teres major. Basically the area right behind your armpits was my main target. I started out doing weighted wide grip dead hangs, behind the neck pullups, and wide grip deadlifts. I then began doing weighted hammer chins with a narrower than shoulder width grip for actual lat thickness.

I have now graduated to lat flyes which hit the teres major right on point. Lat building is not a simple thing and less experienced lifters seem to take a while before they figure that out. Some people cannot attain full lat development from simply doing vertical rowing movements with one grip width because the grip you use can really affect how your lats are hit.

A shoulder width or narrower neutral grip will really hammer the lats from the lat belly up. While a wider overhand grip seems to only hit the outer/upper lats and bring the teres into play. Chinups seem to be best for overall lat sweep but they don't seem to hit the upper lats/teres quite as hard as pullups with a pronated grip do.

Also most people cannot attain true lat thickness without some type of horizontal rowing movment such as bentover rows, t-bar rows etc. Building a great pair of lats takes a while and a lot goes into it. You might have to master different grips as well as rowing movements from various angles before you build a formidable pair.

[_Dominik_]

Originally Posted by W8isGR8

Yeah, you can see where the lats end, and how they're being pushed out by other muscles. I argued this point months ago when I first got here, explaining that the width was from muscles like the teres major, and the thickness was from the lower back muscles(which run all the way up the spine) pushing the lats out.

Exactly. The teres major muscles are hardly ever mentioned in back discussions but it's all there as clear as day when you look at a photo of a thick, detailed back like that.

A little off topic, but it reminds me of the rhomboids which are pushing the traps out and contribute a lot to overall thickness. It's something I notice immediately when I look at someone's back. Either they have that thickness or they don't. That's why I feel quite strongly about using heavy poundages for training the back. They're deep muscles that won't be punching their way out from light machine rows and pulldowns. You've really got to slam them hard.

[DiamondDelts]

Originally Posted by _Dominik_

Exactly. The teres major muscles are hardly ever mentioned in back discussions but it's all there as clear as day when you look at a photo of a thick, detailed back like that.

A little off topic, but it reminds me of the rhomboids which are pushing the traps out and contribute a lot to overall thickness. It's something I notice immediately when I look at someone's back. Either they have that thickness or they don't. That's why I feel quite strongly about using heavy poundages for training the back. They're deep muscles that won't be punching their way out from light machine rows and pulldowns. You've really got to slam them hard.

It seems so simple to me now. But I can remember being so clueless when I first began trying to build a pair of lats. Now I do certain exercises for back width which target the teres. I don't consider them actual lat exercises. Just width builders. For lat building any exercise I do has to be shoulder width or close and use a neutral or underhand grip. But I notice most noobs still are trying to build a great pair of lats just off pullups. I don't consider pullups to be a great lat builder unless you have a wide ribcage with low lat insertions.

[Mike750]

Originally Posted by _Dominik_

Have a read through this article explaining those muscles in detail. There's no question that they contribute to overall upper back width just below the delts, especially the teres major.

We've all seen Ronnie's back a million times so check out this photo of a guy named Joel Stubs. There's more than "lat width" going on there.

This guy is unreal. Maybe better back than Ronnie (I hate to say). I saw those pics and that one doesn't even do him justice.

Are those pics from FLEX? That's where I saw this guy a few months back. There were a couple pics that dropped my jaw and he was just standing there relaxed.

[The Real Deal]

Originally Posted by DiamondDelts

It seems so simple to me now. But I can remember being so clueless when I first began trying to build a pair of lats. Now I do certain exercises for back width which target the teres. I don't consider them actual lat exercises. Just width builders. For lat building any exercise I do has to be shoulder width or close and use a neutral or underhand grip. But I notice most noobs still are trying to build a great pair of lats just off pullups. I don't consider pullups to be a great lat builder unless you have a wide ribcage with low lat insertions.

so fking true. i dont know why pullups are ingrained into everyones mind as the end all solution to lat building.

[_Dominik_]

Originally Posted by Mike750

This guy is unreal. Maybe better back than Ronnie (I hate to say). I saw those pics and that one doesn't even do him justice.

Are those pics from FLEX? That's where I saw this guy a few months back. There were a couple pics that dropped my jaw and he was just standing there relaxed.

That's the one. Here's the article (unfortunately no photos). One of the best backs I've seen. Plenty of thickness plus everything seems to be popping out of it.

[DiamondDelts]

Originally Posted by The Real Deal

so fking true. i dont know why pullups are ingrained into everyones mind as the end all solution to lat building.

Pretty much. The funny thing is I have seem many certified trainers in gyms still giving out this advice. Yet I was able to figure this stuff out on my own with NO formal knowledge in kinesiology. Go figure.

[W8isGR8]

Originally Posted by DiamondDelts

It seems so simple to me now. But I can remember being so clueless when I first began trying to build a pair of lats. Now I do certain exercises for back width which target the teres. I don't consider them actual lat exercises. Just width builders. For lat building any exercise I do has to be shoulder width or close and use a neutral or underhand grip. But I notice most noobs still are trying to build a great pair of lats just off pullups. I don't consider pullups to be a great lat builder unless you have a wide ribcage with low lat insertions.

I've found that free-weight pullovers hit the armpit area hardest.

[Morbid_Mind]

Originally Posted by DiamondDelts

Pretty much. The funny thing is I have seem many certified trainers in gyms still giving out this advice. Yet I was able to figure this stuff out on my own with NO formal knowledge in kinesiology. Go figure.

Trainers at my gym all advocate pulldowns. Rarely do I see anyone doing pullups.

[W8isGR8]

Looks like Zane did his pullovers.

[timmy47]

Originally Posted by W8isGR8

I've found that free-weight pullovers hit the armpit area hardest.

me too. thats the only time it hurts there after a back workout.

[DiamondDelts]

Originally Posted by W8isGR8

I've found that free-weight pullovers hit the armpit area hardest.

Well I still am a pullover fanatic. But I love my lat flyes(shrugs). As everyone knows by now, I do mine on dip bars. But the dip bar spacing is key. I have two spacings I use. Elbows narrower than shoulder widht for actual lat work. Elbows about 2-4 inches wider than shoulder width for width building. Took me a while to get the hang of this but they work like a charm. Though I still do my pullovers as well. I can NOT let the old school down.

[The Real Deal]

Originally Posted by W8isGR8

I've found that free-weight pullovers hit the armpit area hardest.

hmm...interesting

[DiamondDelts]

I have always though that a wide back was the signature bodypart in terms of power. Lee Haney was my idol growing up(still is) and he is the main reason why I began lifting. Noobs seem to be so fatuated with benchpress/curl stats, big biceps, and huge pecs. But the back has always fascinated me since childhood. It is the most difficult muscle group to build to it's full potential due to it's complexity. It is not a noob muscle such as the biceps or chest. etc. But when it is built up, wow. Watch out.



http://www.leehaney.com/lee2.jpg

[AHTTG]

Different grip and hand placement is key. My back is one part I never have to worry about, here's my current routine:

1. Bent over Barbell Rows. Wide grip, to abs at some 60 degree angle
2. Wide grip Pullups. Overhand grip
3. Dumbell Rows. Bring the dumbell to torso than back ALL the way down. No jerking of the shoulder joint
4. Close grip Pulldowns. Underhand grip. Don't let the word pulldown scare you though

[AHTTG]

A good back is KEY to any physique. It gives shape to the whole body, the silhouette(sp???) is very, very important.

Here's a shot of the King of BICEPS AND CHEST, Arnie and his back

And just so you can see what I mean by shape, some Oliva for ya

[LL SquatButt J]

hey im just wondering do u guys think there would be a big significant difference between doing the wide grip pull down and the wide grip pullupz? i see everyone talking bout the pullupz but not mentioning the factors that make it so superior to the pull downs, so i was hopeing maybe someone here could chime in and turn on my light bulb for this one....thanx in advance

edit: by the way, have you guys seen Johnnie jackson's back, like right above his rhombz? (just going a lil bit down his kneck) i was wondering how da hellz do you get that? i haven't see anyone with one like that...do u guys know what part im talking about? heres a pic

[LL SquatButt J]

here's another pic of the muscle im talking about

[AnaerobicAndrew]

Originally Posted by _Dominik_

Have a read through this article explaining those muscles in detail. There's no question that they contribute to overall upper back width just below the delts, especially the teres major.

We've all seen Ronnie's back a million times so check out this photo of a guy named Joel Stubs. There's more than "lat width" going on there.

Great article Dom.

[AnaerobicAndrew]

Originally Posted by jampsifit

here's another pic of the muscle im talking about

That area is just the recess between the traps where the C/T vertebrae meet...I think...

[LL SquatButt J]

hmmm, u sure? and have u seen anyone else with something like that (as developed as they are)? if so then slap sum pics down...thanx

[Ripped Mass]

I like to do pull-ups, bent over rows (wide and narrow grip), and dumbell rows occasionally and that combo seems to be working.

[W8isGR8]

Pull-ups are a close chained(body through space) exercise, and therefore have a higher level of neuro-muscular activation.


And you look cooler doing them