For Back Size: Full Deadlift or Rack Pull?

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]Mateus wrote:
josh86 wrote:
Relaxed back shot…

I built my back using primarily these lifts:

1 Arm DB Rows
Oldschool T-bar Rows
V-grip Seated Cable Rows
Wide-grip Lat Pulldowns
Wide-grip Rack Chins

Occasionally Rack Pulls and Weighted Chins make their way in, but the ones listed above are what built my back and continue to do so. As much as I like Rack Pulling heavy weight because its cool - I’ve never felt it builds the back as well as actually ROWING weight, heavy T-bars are the shit.

I incorporate all the exercises you mentioned except for the t-bar. My gym has every machine, rack, mechanism under the sun except a t-bar row. Will a seated row suffice as a replacement? If not, then what…[/quote]

As someone else already stated an “Oldschool T-bar Row” is just putting a bar wedged in any corner and loading up weight on the other end. I personally use a v-grip handle around the bar to hold on to when doing these.

If you wanna see what I mean just watch pretty much any Ronnie Coleman lifting compilation video - they always show him doing oldschool t-bars in the videos.

My gym has multiple t-bar machines and I actually just prefer the oldschool bar in a corner style.

22

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If you are interested in adding size, then why are you doing maximal effort deadlifting, which by definition is above 90% of your 1rm. Maximal doubles, triples, and singles are not going to be the most conducive to size gains as the fatigue is too great and the volume too low.

I do full ROM deadlifts and my back is just fine. Some people prefer rack pulls and their backs are just fine. It’s up to you, just do them and get strong as fuck on them.

I’d have to disagree with the first point. I think if there is one exercise that should be done as heavy as possible, it’s the deadlift, imo. That being said, I might bump the reps slightly, at a certain point. But if you’re doing 3 sets of 6 with 300lbs, I believe your time would be better spent doing doubles and triples with 50+lbs added to the bar.

You said anything about three sets of 6?

A set to (near) failure at 6-8 reps is going to do a lot more for growth than hitting a max single every week.[/quote]

I was using that as an example. I agree with your statement, but if your 6-8 reps are coming below the 400lb range, I think it would be smarter to focus on moving heavier weight. Once you can move some weight, bump the reps.

23

[quote]martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If you are interested in adding size, then why are you doing maximal effort deadlifting, which by definition is above 90% of your 1rm. Maximal doubles, triples, and singles are not going to be the most conducive to size gains as the fatigue is too great and the volume too low.

I do full ROM deadlifts and my back is just fine. Some people prefer rack pulls and their backs are just fine. It’s up to you, just do them and get strong as fuck on them.

I’d have to disagree with the first point. I think if there is one exercise that should be done as heavy as possible, it’s the deadlift, imo. That being said, I might bump the reps slightly, at a certain point. But if you’re doing 3 sets of 6 with 300lbs, I believe your time would be better spent doing doubles and triples with 50+lbs added to the bar.

You said anything about three sets of 6?

A set to (near) failure at 6-8 reps is going to do a lot more for growth than hitting a max single every week.

I was using that as an example. I agree with your statement, but if your 6-8 reps are coming below the 400lb range, I think it would be smarter to focus on moving heavier weight. Once you can move some weight, bump the reps.[/quote]

Why not just work up from 200(whatever)x6-8 to 400x6-8 to 600…
?

It’s not hard to get your deadlift over 400 lbs for 6-8 reps, you don’t need to constantly do very low reps to get there… If you wanted to get your deadlift up big time compared to your bodyweight, ok, low reps are going to help you more in that regard as higher rep strength increases depend much more on muscle-mass increases and thus added bodyweight…

Just from a 1RM you can’t tell whether the man has a big back or not.
Leverages, technique, the nervous system… All play much bigger roles in that case than muscle-mass. Of course an 800 lb deadlift is not possibly due to leverages and technique alone and actually requires a substantial amount of supporting mass. But a 500 lb 1RM deadlit doesn’t say shit about a guy’s back.

24

I did a lot of full deads when I was first trying to put overall size, and even though I did get bigger (all over), my back didn’t come into it’s own until I really focused on training in a bodybuilding manner (essentially eliminating full deads, and even doing a lot of DB dead work). Still, I will always attribute most of my trap development to years of pulling 5 plates +.

S

25

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If you are interested in adding size, then why are you doing maximal effort deadlifting, which by definition is above 90% of your 1rm. Maximal doubles, triples, and singles are not going to be the most conducive to size gains as the fatigue is too great and the volume too low.

I do full ROM deadlifts and my back is just fine. Some people prefer rack pulls and their backs are just fine. It’s up to you, just do them and get strong as fuck on them.

I’d have to disagree with the first point. I think if there is one exercise that should be done as heavy as possible, it’s the deadlift, imo. That being said, I might bump the reps slightly, at a certain point. But if you’re doing 3 sets of 6 with 300lbs, I believe your time would be better spent doing doubles and triples with 50+lbs added to the bar.

You said anything about three sets of 6?

A set to (near) failure at 6-8 reps is going to do a lot more for growth than hitting a max single every week.

I was using that as an example. I agree with your statement, but if your 6-8 reps are coming below the 400lb range, I think it would be smarter to focus on moving heavier weight. Once you can move some weight, bump the reps.

Why not just work up from 200(whatever)x6-8 to 400x6-8 to 600…
?

It’s not hard to get your deadlift over 400 lbs for 6-8 reps, you don’t need to constantly do very low reps to get there… If you wanted to get your deadlift up big time compared to your bodyweight, ok, low reps are going to help you more in that regard as higher rep strength increases depend much more on muscle-mass increases and thus added bodyweight…

Just from a 1RM you can’t tell whether the man has a big back or not.
Leverages, technique, the nervous system… All play much bigger roles in that case than muscle-mass. Of course an 800 lb deadlift is not possibly due to leverages and technique alone and actually requires a substantial amount of supporting mass. But a 500 lb 1RM deadlit doesn’t say shit about a guy’s back.

[/quote]

Bingo. My deadlift has increased a great deal more due to pulling submaximal weights for reps rather than trying to increase my max by maxing out all of the time.

26

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If you are interested in adding size, then why are you doing maximal effort deadlifting, which by definition is above 90% of your 1rm. Maximal doubles, triples, and singles are not going to be the most conducive to size gains as the fatigue is too great and the volume too low.

I do full ROM deadlifts and my back is just fine. Some people prefer rack pulls and their backs are just fine. It’s up to you, just do them and get strong as fuck on them.

I’d have to disagree with the first point. I think if there is one exercise that should be done as heavy as possible, it’s the deadlift, imo. That being said, I might bump the reps slightly, at a certain point. But if you’re doing 3 sets of 6 with 300lbs, I believe your time would be better spent doing doubles and triples with 50+lbs added to the bar.

You said anything about three sets of 6?

A set to (near) failure at 6-8 reps is going to do a lot more for growth than hitting a max single every week.

I was using that as an example. I agree with your statement, but if your 6-8 reps are coming below the 400lb range, I think it would be smarter to focus on moving heavier weight. Once you can move some weight, bump the reps.

Why not just work up from 200(whatever)x6-8 to 400x6-8 to 600…
?

It’s not hard to get your deadlift over 400 lbs for 6-8 reps, you don’t need to constantly do very low reps to get there… If you wanted to get your deadlift up big time compared to your bodyweight, ok, low reps are going to help you more in that regard as higher rep strength increases depend much more on muscle-mass increases and thus added bodyweight…

Just from a 1RM you can’t tell whether the man has a big back or not.
Leverages, technique, the nervous system… All play much bigger roles in that case than muscle-mass. Of course an 800 lb deadlift is not possibly due to leverages and technique alone and actually requires a substantial amount of supporting mass. But a 500 lb 1RM deadlit doesn’t say shit about a guy’s back.

[/quote]

I disagree. How many guys with a 500+ pound dead have you seen with small backs? My back grows great with my back work training built around 2-3 rep deads.

In fact deads are one of those lifts technique isnâ??t as crucial for. Really, I lolled at muscle not being that crucial of a factor in the deadlift.

27

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If you are interested in adding size, then why are you doing maximal effort deadlifting, which by definition is above 90% of your 1rm. Maximal doubles, triples, and singles are not going to be the most conducive to size gains as the fatigue is too great and the volume too low.

I do full ROM deadlifts and my back is just fine. Some people prefer rack pulls and their backs are just fine. It’s up to you, just do them and get strong as fuck on them.

I’d have to disagree with the first point. I think if there is one exercise that should be done as heavy as possible, it’s the deadlift, imo. That being said, I might bump the reps slightly, at a certain point. But if you’re doing 3 sets of 6 with 300lbs, I believe your time would be better spent doing doubles and triples with 50+lbs added to the bar.

You said anything about three sets of 6?

A set to (near) failure at 6-8 reps is going to do a lot more for growth than hitting a max single every week.

I was using that as an example. I agree with your statement, but if your 6-8 reps are coming below the 400lb range, I think it would be smarter to focus on moving heavier weight. Once you can move some weight, bump the reps.

Why not just work up from 200(whatever)x6-8 to 400x6-8 to 600…
?

It’s not hard to get your deadlift over 400 lbs for 6-8 reps, you don’t need to constantly do very low reps to get there… If you wanted to get your deadlift up big time compared to your bodyweight, ok, low reps are going to help you more in that regard as higher rep strength increases depend much more on muscle-mass increases and thus added bodyweight…

Just from a 1RM you can’t tell whether the man has a big back or not.
Leverages, technique, the nervous system… All play much bigger roles in that case than muscle-mass. Of course an 800 lb deadlift is not possibly due to leverages and technique alone and actually requires a substantial amount of supporting mass. But a 500 lb 1RM deadlit doesn’t say shit about a guy’s back.

Bingo. My deadlift has increased a great deal more due to pulling submaximal weights for reps rather than trying to increase my max by maxing out all of the time.[/quote]

The goal of the OP is to increase size. If you’re telling me your deadlift strength has gone up by using lighter weights vs. heavier weights, that could be your muscle fiber makeup, I still have a hard time believing your deadlift (not size) got better by going lighter. By and large one gets stronger by lifting heavier. That being said, this is a bodybuilding forum, and the goal is to get bigger. There is a point where you have to focus on size and more reps (6-8 range or whatever), but in my view the quickest way to get bigger initially is by getting yourself stronger. I know I wouldn’t be seeing the results I’ve seen with DC training if I were benching 200 for reps and deadlifting 250. I don’t disagree that more reps on deads is a must, I just don’t think it’s the best way to start.

28

[quote]martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If you are interested in adding size, then why are you doing maximal effort deadlifting, which by definition is above 90% of your 1rm. Maximal doubles, triples, and singles are not going to be the most conducive to size gains as the fatigue is too great and the volume too low.

I do full ROM deadlifts and my back is just fine. Some people prefer rack pulls and their backs are just fine. It’s up to you, just do them and get strong as fuck on them.

I’d have to disagree with the first point. I think if there is one exercise that should be done as heavy as possible, it’s the deadlift, imo. That being said, I might bump the reps slightly, at a certain point. But if you’re doing 3 sets of 6 with 300lbs, I believe your time would be better spent doing doubles and triples with 50+lbs added to the bar.

You said anything about three sets of 6?

A set to (near) failure at 6-8 reps is going to do a lot more for growth than hitting a max single every week.

I was using that as an example. I agree with your statement, but if your 6-8 reps are coming below the 400lb range, I think it would be smarter to focus on moving heavier weight. Once you can move some weight, bump the reps.

Why not just work up from 200(whatever)x6-8 to 400x6-8 to 600…
?

It’s not hard to get your deadlift over 400 lbs for 6-8 reps, you don’t need to constantly do very low reps to get there… If you wanted to get your deadlift up big time compared to your bodyweight, ok, low reps are going to help you more in that regard as higher rep strength increases depend much more on muscle-mass increases and thus added bodyweight…

Just from a 1RM you can’t tell whether the man has a big back or not.
Leverages, technique, the nervous system… All play much bigger roles in that case than muscle-mass. Of course an 800 lb deadlift is not possibly due to leverages and technique alone and actually requires a substantial amount of supporting mass. But a 500 lb 1RM deadlit doesn’t say shit about a guy’s back.

Bingo. My deadlift has increased a great deal more due to pulling submaximal weights for reps rather than trying to increase my max by maxing out all of the time.

The goal of the OP is to increase size. If you’re telling me your deadlift strength has gone up by using lighter weights vs. heavier weights, that could be your muscle fiber makeup, I still have a hard time believing your deadlift (not size) got better by going lighter. By and large one gets stronger by lifting heavier. That being said, this is a bodybuilding forum, and the goal is to get bigger. There is a point where you have to focus on size and more reps (6-8 range or whatever), but in my view the quickest way to get bigger initially is by getting yourself stronger[/quote] The body does not need a huge back to deadlift 500 lbs once. The same way that you do not need huge pecs, tris or shoulders to bench 405 a single time. If you get to those numbers via just doing a few very low-rep sets, you are not going to look like a bodybuilder unless you are a fast-twitch monster.[quote]. I know I wouldn’t be seeing the results I’ve seen with DC training if I were benching 200 for reps and deadlifting 250. I don’t disagree that more reps on deads is a must[/quote] I don’t say it’s a must, but by and large I see people get far more size out of lifting with moderate to high reps. (of course I’m a low volume guy, keep that in mind, that’s a lot different from people doing a ton of sets at the same rep range)
Also, I’d say that especially at the beginning that can help you get strong much faster than trying to grind your way up with max singles every session. Maxing out all the time on the same exercise only gets you so strong, and a beginner isn’t exactly someone whom I’d trust in the technique department either… [quote]
[/quote], I just don’t think it’s the best way to start.

Huh? Are you guys incapable of getting stronger in the 6-8 rep range?
What about every single guy doing Wendler 5/3/1? You do no max singles or anything like that there, it’s all submaximal work and you end up repping out on your last set… On wave 3 that’s usually 4-9 reps or so.

I can see how it would be difficult to get stronger doing 4-8 work sets at 10-12 reps or so.

But 1-2 sets at 8-12 or 6-8 work perfectly fine.

Another example, look at Hanley’s results from DC training (or anyone who has done DC for real).

Deadlifting there/rackpulling etc is all done with a 6-8 rep set followed by another 9-12 rep set… Seems to have worked for Justin Harris and co, you can pretty much put on 10-20 lbs onto both sets every 2 weeks that way until you switch the exercise out.

Now, I know that DC is not for beginners. I keep saying that after all, so no need to remind me. That has less to do with whether the rep ranges used are any good for beginners though than with many other factors.

Many beginners can go from rack pulling 200 lbs for 6-8 to 450 for the same number within a few months if they do stuff right. Deadlifting is more tricky as it involves more potential weak areas or at least involves them to a greater degree, but it can still be done and it’s not all that uncommon of an occurance with serious trainees.

Give me a break people, who here honestly thinks that you must always do very low reps in order to get stronger? That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

Just because you can’t do 6-8 reps with a weight you can only do once doesn’t mean you can’t put more weight on the bar next time you train = lifting heavier = getting stronger.

Unless you want to stay at a relatively low weight-class while getting very strong, I firmly believe that moderate reps are a much faster way to decent size and strength than trying to just max out whenever you touch a weight…

29

[quote]josh86 wrote:
Relaxed back shot…

I built my back using primarily these lifts:

1 Arm DB Rows
Oldschool T-bar Rows
V-grip Seated Cable Rows
Wide-grip Lat Pulldowns
Wide-grip Rack Chins

Occasionally Rack Pulls and Weighted Chins make their way in, but the ones listed above are what built my back and continue to do so. As much as I like Rack Pulling heavy weight because its cool - I’ve never felt it builds the back as well as actually ROWING weight, heavy T-bars are the shit.[/quote]

Dude, awesome back as always [no homo]

And I second oldschool t-bar rows being better than the machines. The machine variants just never felt right for me.

30

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I disagree. How many guys with a 500+ pound dead have you seen with small backs? [/quote] Small? Not many. Impressive considering the weight they’re lifting? Very few, and those got most of their back size from their assistance work or just respond extremely well to low reps, size-wise. Not the norm at all. Good leverages/structure and technique + a strong core allow guys to deadlift 500lbs ONCE who by no means have impressive backs. Ronnie deadlifts about 200 lbs or so less than a certain world record holder, but has a vastly more impressive back in every aspect…
I even see guys deadlifting 450-500 for sets of 5 without really having backs I’d call impressive, mostly taller people. (then again, others have very good backs at around the same strength levels…)[quote]My back grows great with my back work training built around 2-3 rep deads. [/quote] How many sets are you doing/how often are you doing that, how much do you weigh and how tall are you? What does your assistance work look like and what numbers are you putting up there?
(not that I want to appear like an ass here, it’s great that your back is growing, brother!)[quote]

In fact deads are one of those lifts technique isnâ??t as crucial for. Really, I lolled at muscle not being that crucial of a factor in the deadlift.
[/quote]
Tell that to Ed Coan. Technique not crucial? You mean the whole shortening of the bar-path by keeping your shoulders forward/upper back rounded etc don’t make a difference?
Perhaps if you have very long arms, but if you’re like me with shitty ham/calf flexibility and shorter arms, then sumo deadlifting with a very wide stance and doing all those little tricks along the lines of a rounded upper back etc make a ridiculously large difference compared to my not-so-great conv. dead numbers. Hell, I have enough trouble getting into conv. dead position as it is, even with a rounded upper back :slight_smile:

Look at it this way: I’m not saying that one can’t build a thick back with low-rep deadlifts. I’m saying that for bodybuilding purposes, you are going to look a lot more impressive if you go for higher reps while using the heaviest weight you can handle in that range. That does not equal “light weight” and “not getting stronger”.

Here’s another thing: A deadlit set of mine looks more like a stream of singles with a few breaths in between… I’m not doing 10 rapid-fire pump-reps there. So I’m probably using a lot more weight than my 10RM when doing 10 reps in a set.

As I said, a very high deadlift like 700-1000 will demand a great supporting structure, but quite a few can get 500 due to leverages, technique etc…

And to add one more thing: I’ve always found it
a) easier on the joints and tendons (for me, personally)
b) easier to keep my technique/form good, with a few exceptions
c) faster
to progress with moderate reps compared to very low reps.
I have the joints of a 120lb person, which isn’t surprising considering that that’s where I started out. Very low rep gave me way too much trouble as a beginner, particularly on rows and presses (exception beign the close-grip press, if there’s a god out there who made me, then he had perfect CGP leverages in mind when he did so :slight_smile:

In any event, there are many ways to skin the cat and way more factors are involved than “high or low reps on deadlifts?”

31

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

I disagree. How many guys with a 500+ pound dead have you seen with small backs? Small? Not many. Impressive considering the weight they’re lifting? Very few, and those got most of their back size from their assistance work or just respond extremely well to low reps, size-wise. Not the norm at all. Good leverages/structure and technique + a strong core allow guys to deadlift 500lbs ONCE who by no means have impressive backs. Ronnie deadlifts about 200 lbs or so less than a certain world record holder, but has a vastly more impressive back in every aspect…
I even see guys deadlifting 450-500 for sets of 5 without really having backs I’d call impressive, mostly taller people. (then again, others have very good backs at around the same strength levels…)My back grows great with my back work training built around 2-3 rep deads. How many sets are you doing/how often are you doing that, how much do you weigh and how tall are you? What does your assistance work look like and what numbers are you putting up there?
(not that I want to appear like an ass here, it’s great that your back is growing, brother!)

In fact deads are one of those lifts technique isn�¢??t as crucial for. Really, I lolled at muscle not being that crucial of a factor in the deadlift.

Tell that to Ed Coan. Technique not crucial? You mean the whole shortening of the bar-path by keeping your shoulders forward/upper back rounded etc don’t make a difference?
Perhaps if you have very long arms, but if you’re like me with shitty ham/calf flexibility and shorter arms, then sumo deadlifting with a very wide stance and doing all those little tricks along the lines of a rounded upper back etc make a ridiculously large difference compared to my not-so-great conv. dead numbers. Hell, I have enough trouble getting into conv. dead position as it is, even with a rounded upper back :slight_smile:

Look at it this way: I’m not saying that one can’t build a thick back with low-rep deadlifts. I’m saying that for bodybuilding purposes, you are going to look a lot more impressive if you go for higher reps while using the heaviest weight you can handle in that range. That does not equal “light weight” and “not getting stronger”.

Here’s another thing: A deadlit set of mine looks more like a stream of singles with a few breaths in between… I’m not doing 10 rapid-fire pump-reps there. So I’m probably using a lot more weight than my 10RM when doing 10 reps in a set.

As I said, a very high deadlift like 700-1000 will demand a great supporting structure, but quite a few can get 500 due to leverages, technique etc…

And to add one more thing: I’ve always found it
a) easier on the joints and tendons (for me, personally)
b) easier to keep my technique/form good, with a few exceptions
c) faster
to progress with moderate reps compared to very low reps.
I have the joints of a 120lb person, which isn’t surprising considering that that’s where I started out. Very low rep gave me way too much trouble as a beginner, particularly on rows and presses (exception beign the close-grip press, if there’s a god out there who made me, then he had perfect CGP leverages in mind when he did so :slight_smile:

In any event, there are many ways to skin the cat and way more factors are involved than “high or low reps on deadlifts?”

[/quote]

C_C I’m always impressed with the level of detail and consideration that you put into your posts.

I think one of the issues with beginners and intermediates (I’ll include myself in the latter) is impatience with strength levels. Even though higher reps might be the best choice for bodybuilding, the focus can slide toward getting the numbers respectable. The feeling is that once the numbers are to the point where they are not embarrassing, then you can “back off” and then work with higher reps.

Or, of course, I could just be projecting my own experience.

32

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

I disagree. How many guys with a 500+ pound dead have you seen with small backs? Small? Not many. Impressive considering the weight they’re lifting? Very few, and those got most of their back size from their assistance work or just respond extremely well to low reps, size-wise. Not the norm at all. Good leverages/structure and technique + a strong core allow guys to deadlift 500lbs ONCE who by no means have impressive backs. Ronnie deadlifts about 200 lbs or so less than a certain world record holder, but has a vastly more impressive back in every aspect…
I even see guys deadlifting 450-500 for sets of 5 without really having backs I’d call impressive, mostly taller people. (then again, others have very good backs at around the same strength levels…)My back grows great with my back work training built around 2-3 rep deads. How many sets are you doing/how often are you doing that, how much do you weigh and how tall are you? What does your assistance work look like and what numbers are you putting up there?
(not that I want to appear like an ass here, it’s great that your back is growing, brother!)

In fact deads are one of those lifts technique isn�¢??t as crucial for. Really, I lolled at muscle not being that crucial of a factor in the deadlift.

Tell that to Ed Coan. Technique not crucial? You mean the whole shortening of the bar-path by keeping your shoulders forward/upper back rounded etc don’t make a difference?
Perhaps if you have very long arms, but if you’re like me with shitty ham/calf flexibility and shorter arms, then sumo deadlifting with a very wide stance and doing all those little tricks along the lines of a rounded upper back etc make a ridiculously large difference compared to my not-so-great conv. dead numbers. Hell, I have enough trouble getting into conv. dead position as it is, even with a rounded upper back :slight_smile:

Look at it this way: I’m not saying that one can’t build a thick back with low-rep deadlifts. I’m saying that for bodybuilding purposes, you are going to look a lot more impressive if you go for higher reps while using the heaviest weight you can handle in that range. That does not equal “light weight” and “not getting stronger”.

Here’s another thing: A deadlit set of mine looks more like a stream of singles with a few breaths in between… I’m not doing 10 rapid-fire pump-reps there. So I’m probably using a lot more weight than my 10RM when doing 10 reps in a set.

As I said, a very high deadlift like 700-1000 will demand a great supporting structure, but quite a few can get 500 due to leverages, technique etc…

And to add one more thing: I’ve always found it
a) easier on the joints and tendons (for me, personally)
b) easier to keep my technique/form good, with a few exceptions
c) faster
to progress with moderate reps compared to very low reps.
I have the joints of a 120lb person, which isn’t surprising considering that that’s where I started out. Very low rep gave me way too much trouble as a beginner, particularly on rows and presses (exception beign the close-grip press, if there’s a god out there who made me, then he had perfect CGP leverages in mind when he did so :slight_smile:

In any event, there are many ways to skin the cat and way more factors are involved than “high or low reps on deadlifts?”

[/quote]

I agree a lot with what you are saying, maybe I’m just not expressing it right. I believe it is more important for a beginner to focus on getting stronger, size will come with strength increases and food intake. I do NOT think max singles are a smart thing to do a lot of, especially for a beginner. I think for a beginner and even for most trainees your bread and butter is heavy triples and 5’s on the DL. And I agree that there is more than one way to skin a cat, especially when it comes to shit like this.

33

Just sharing my experience with rack pulls and deadlifts.

With rack pulls I feel more emphasis placed on the upper traps and upper back. On the other hand with the deadlift, It tends to really hit my spinal erectors. I don’t do much rack pulling but I do deadlifts religously and I feel it has contributed significantly to my back development.

34

[quote]martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
martyh wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If you are interested in adding size, then why are you doing maximal effort deadlifting, which by definition is above 90% of your 1rm. Maximal doubles, triples, and singles are not going to be the most conducive to size gains as the fatigue is too great and the volume too low.

I do full ROM deadlifts and my back is just fine. Some people prefer rack pulls and their backs are just fine. It’s up to you, just do them and get strong as fuck on them.

I’d have to disagree with the first point. I think if there is one exercise that should be done as heavy as possible, it’s the deadlift, imo. That being said, I might bump the reps slightly, at a certain point. But if you’re doing 3 sets of 6 with 300lbs, I believe your time would be better spent doing doubles and triples with 50+lbs added to the bar.

You said anything about three sets of 6?

A set to (near) failure at 6-8 reps is going to do a lot more for growth than hitting a max single every week.

I was using that as an example. I agree with your statement, but if your 6-8 reps are coming below the 400lb range, I think it would be smarter to focus on moving heavier weight. Once you can move some weight, bump the reps.

Why not just work up from 200(whatever)x6-8 to 400x6-8 to 600…
?

It’s not hard to get your deadlift over 400 lbs for 6-8 reps, you don’t need to constantly do very low reps to get there… If you wanted to get your deadlift up big time compared to your bodyweight, ok, low reps are going to help you more in that regard as higher rep strength increases depend much more on muscle-mass increases and thus added bodyweight…

Just from a 1RM you can’t tell whether the man has a big back or not.
Leverages, technique, the nervous system… All play much bigger roles in that case than muscle-mass. Of course an 800 lb deadlift is not possibly due to leverages and technique alone and actually requires a substantial amount of supporting mass. But a 500 lb 1RM deadlit doesn’t say shit about a guy’s back.

Bingo. My deadlift has increased a great deal more due to pulling submaximal weights for reps rather than trying to increase my max by maxing out all of the time.

The goal of the OP is to increase size. If you’re telling me your deadlift strength has gone up by using lighter weights vs. heavier weights, that could be your muscle fiber makeup, I still have a hard time believing your deadlift (not size) got better by going lighter. By and large one gets stronger by lifting heavier. That being said, this is a bodybuilding forum, and the goal is to get bigger. There is a point where you have to focus on size and more reps (6-8 range or whatever), but in my view the quickest way to get bigger initially is by getting yourself stronger. I know I wouldn’t be seeing the results I’ve seen with DC training if I were benching 200 for reps and deadlifting 250. I don’t disagree that more reps on deads is a must, I just don’t think it’s the best way to start.[/quote]

You’re killing me here man. Where did I EVER say to go light? Please show me.

I’m talking about pulling a set to failure (or just short of failure) instead of pulling at or above 90% of your true 1rm (which is the definition of the maximal effort method, which is precisely what we are discussing here). Are you REALLY trying to argue that one single with 420 is superior when it comes to gaining size than a set of 10 with 315? We aren’t discussing getting stronger here, that should always be the goal no matter what rep range you are training in, but to me it sounds like you are trying to argue that

  1. you can’t raise your max by pulling anything more than 5 reps
  2. max singles and triples are more conducive to size gains than higher rep sets (6-10) to failure

Both of those are completely absurd.

35

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Mateus wrote:
josh86 wrote:
Relaxed back shot…

I built my back using primarily these lifts:

1 Arm DB Rows
Oldschool T-bar Rows
V-grip Seated Cable Rows
Wide-grip Lat Pulldowns
Wide-grip Rack Chins

Occasionally Rack Pulls and Weighted Chins make their way in, but the ones listed above are what built my back and continue to do so. As much as I like Rack Pulling heavy weight because its cool - I’ve never felt it builds the back as well as actually ROWING weight, heavy T-bars are the shit.

I incorporate all the exercises you mentioned except for the t-bar. My gym has every machine, rack, mechanism under the sun except a t-bar row. Will a seated row suffice as a replacement? If not, then what…

‘Old School’ T-bars are done with a regular BB in the corner. Regular T-bars refer to the actual machine.

You can do the old school type either with both hands using a v-handle or with just one arm, similar to a DB row. Put a heavy-ish DB on the end of the BB in the corner to prevent the BB from popping out of place.

here’s a great vid showing 1-arm t-bars:

GO GET IT!!! GO GET IT!!! GO GET IT!!!
If he was screaming that shit at me I would’ve done 4 plates each hand too, I was scared watching the video…
Funny thing was I think him screaming at the other guys made them lift harder than he was.

36

The higher absolute load of a rack pull will mean you need to recruit larger muscle mass to move the weight. Hence the use (as reported by several people here) of the larger upper back musculature in addition to the lumbar musculature.

Especially important is the retraction of the shoulder blades at the top of either movement, although I would suggest that because you are lifting more absolute load with the rack pull, this has more importance for trapezius and rhomboid development.

The difference in starting position influences the amount of torque required from the lumbar extensors in the initial phases of the movement. This is best exemplified in the difference of doing a straight leg dead to a bent leg dead (or variations of either), where individuals usually lift more in bent leg variations as the initial momentum is provided from the larger leg muscles, rather than in more straight leg variations where the smaller lumbar extensors are required to generate more torque.

So, in my opinion, what it comes down to is that if you want to focus more on the lumbar region, use standard full range deadlift variations (especially straight leg). If you want more of a bang for your buck in the whole back musculature, and are already doing sufficient work for hamstrings, go for the rack dead version.

As per the discussion of rep levels?

This has been hit ad nauseum in the forums. Personally, I go for a minimum of 4 reps in my deadlift variations, and am comfortable going as high as 12 reps. I don’t advocate doing outside that range either end for long term hypertrophy/strength purposes, but as said above, many ways to skin the cat.

Much love,

And oh yes, just don’t hurt yourselves doing these kinds of exercises, and stop newBs in the gym who are doing it wrong and show them the right way.

With great strength comes great responsibility… (LOL)

37

[quote]giterdone wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

I disagree. How many guys with a 500+ pound dead have you seen with small backs? Small? Not many. Impressive considering the weight they’re lifting? Very few, and those got most of their back size from their assistance work or just respond extremely well to low reps, size-wise. Not the norm at all. Good leverages/structure and technique + a strong core allow guys to deadlift 500lbs ONCE who by no means have impressive backs. Ronnie deadlifts about 200 lbs or so less than a certain world record holder, but has a vastly more impressive back in every aspect…
I even see guys deadlifting 450-500 for sets of 5 without really having backs I’d call impressive, mostly taller people. (then again, others have very good backs at around the same strength levels…)My back grows great with my back work training built around 2-3 rep deads. How many sets are you doing/how often are you doing that, how much do you weigh and how tall are you? What does your assistance work look like and what numbers are you putting up there?
(not that I want to appear like an ass here, it’s great that your back is growing, brother!)

In fact deads are one of those lifts technique isn�?�¢??t as crucial for. Really, I lolled at muscle not being that crucial of a factor in the deadlift.

Tell that to Ed Coan. Technique not crucial? You mean the whole shortening of the bar-path by keeping your shoulders forward/upper back rounded etc don’t make a difference?
Perhaps if you have very long arms, but if you’re like me with shitty ham/calf flexibility and shorter arms, then sumo deadlifting with a very wide stance and doing all those little tricks along the lines of a rounded upper back etc make a ridiculously large difference compared to my not-so-great conv. dead numbers. Hell, I have enough trouble getting into conv. dead position as it is, even with a rounded upper back :slight_smile:

Look at it this way: I’m not saying that one can’t build a thick back with low-rep deadlifts. I’m saying that for bodybuilding purposes, you are going to look a lot more impressive if you go for higher reps while using the heaviest weight you can handle in that range. That does not equal “light weight” and “not getting stronger”.

Here’s another thing: A deadlit set of mine looks more like a stream of singles with a few breaths in between… I’m not doing 10 rapid-fire pump-reps there. So I’m probably using a lot more weight than my 10RM when doing 10 reps in a set.

As I said, a very high deadlift like 700-1000 will demand a great supporting structure, but quite a few can get 500 due to leverages, technique etc…

And to add one more thing: I’ve always found it
a) easier on the joints and tendons (for me, personally)
b) easier to keep my technique/form good, with a few exceptions
c) faster
to progress with moderate reps compared to very low reps.
I have the joints of a 120lb person, which isn’t surprising considering that that’s where I started out. Very low rep gave me way too much trouble as a beginner, particularly on rows and presses (exception beign the close-grip press, if there’s a god out there who made me, then he had perfect CGP leverages in mind when he did so :slight_smile:

In any event, there are many ways to skin the cat and way more factors are involved than “high or low reps on deadlifts?”

C_C I’m always impressed with the level of detail and consideration that you put into your posts.

I think one of the issues with beginners and intermediates (I’ll include myself in the latter) is impatience with strength levels. Even though higher reps might be the best choice for bodybuilding, the focus can slide toward getting the numbers respectable. The feeling is that once the numbers are to the point where they are not embarrassing, then you can “back off” and then work with higher reps.

Or, of course, I could just be projecting my own experience.[/quote]

I have this “problem”, so your not alone giterdone.

38

[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
The higher absolute load of a rack pull will mean you need to recruit larger muscle mass to move the weight. Hence the use (as reported by several people here) of the larger upper back musculature in addition to the lumbar musculature.

Especially important is the retraction of the shoulder blades at the top of either movement, although I would suggest that because you are lifting more absolute load with the rack pull, this has more importance for trapezius and rhomboid development.

The difference in starting position influences the amount of torque required from the lumbar extensors in the initial phases of the movement. This is best exemplified in the difference of doing a straight leg dead to a bent leg dead (or variations of either), where individuals usually lift more in bent leg variations as the initial momentum is provided from the larger leg muscles, rather than in more straight leg variations where the smaller lumbar extensors are required to generate more torque.

So, in my opinion, what it comes down to is that if you want to focus more on the lumbar region, use standard full range deadlift variations (especially straight leg). If you want more of a bang for your buck in the whole back musculature, and are already doing sufficient work for hamstrings, go for the rack dead version.

As per the discussion of rep levels?

This has been hit ad nauseum in the forums. Personally, I go for a minimum of 4 reps in my deadlift variations, and am comfortable going as high as 12 reps. I don’t advocate doing outside that range either end for long term hypertrophy/strength purposes, but as said above, many ways to skin the cat.

Much love,

And oh yes, just don’t hurt yourselves doing these kinds of exercises, and stop newBs in the gym who are doing it wrong and show them the right way.

With great strength comes great responsibility… (LOL)

[/quote]

Boy the waters are murky! My understanding from all that I have read tonight is that the rack pull from a fairly low position will do WELL for size gains by using a rep range of 4-10 depending on sets, fatigue, etc. This combined with other compound back movements and accessory work should be an excellent approach/strategy to make the gains that I want.

39

[quote]Mateus wrote:

Boy the waters are murky! My understanding from all that I have read tonight is that the rack pull from a fairly low position will do WELL for size gains by using a rep range of 4-10 depending on sets, fatigue, etc. This combined with other compound back movements and accessory work should be an excellent approach/strategy to make the gains that I want. [/quote]

Well, you can simplify things right down and say “whatever works for you man, everyone is different”, which to an extent is true, but your approach outlined above would work, and I would say, would work well. But each to their own.

40

I would say you’re right on. Rack pulls can be utilized in that rep range and build some big backs, forearms, traps, and grips. I’m doing em tomorrow for a max 5 rep set, on back day due to this thread. So thank you! this thread inspired me to do them tomorrow, and now I’m excited.