Thanks Andrew!
Exactly as you say, very focused and intense move. When it’s done right it’s very humbling.
A whole BUNCH of people who do DC use these as their main width exercise.
But, to claim it is the “greatest” back width exercise is not outrageous.
The “contenders” are going to be some kind of Pull up. Not pulldown. This is a form of pull-up. Not an outrageous claim.
Let’s look at some evidence. I don’t believe that EMG is the be all, end all. I also believe that each person is different. But that being said…look at the results from BCs EMG studies:
So someone saying “this is the best width exercise” (and allowing for some attention getting hyperbole) is not outrageous at all. In fact, an inverse feet elevated ROW scored high for Lat activation. What if the angle was more towards a vertical pull?
Regarding bicep peak, regional activation (distal v. proximal) differences through different exercises are well evidenced now. The “can’t do it” is really what is the outdated information.
Larry Scott changed his bicep training, and he definitely improved the peak of his biceps.
None of this “proves” anything. It just evidences. Which goes away from “definitively not correct”.
All back exercises with weight will build back muscles. This recommended program might be the best for width. I have sure past my muscle building days, but I sure would have given the program a try.
All that said, wide lats relaxed is one thing. But once you are on stage your ability to get great range of motion of your scapula makes possible to do a freaky most muscular and some super wide lat spreads. Those with great scapula control can move there lats wider in as many as 3 stages, with each stage wider than the previous. Those who cannot control their scapula struggle with disappointing lat spreads and even double biceps poses.
I don’t believe Larry Scott is near the best example for someone changing the biceps peak. Either picture above stands close to the VERY best arms ever. His attachments were a pure genetic gift. If his biceps got bigger the only place to grow is up. With his wrist turned to maximize the biceps flex… still no gap, at all, between biceps and forearm.
Heya,
Not going to belabor my point of the back exercise, I think you making up your own ideas of what would happen if…not exactly making your point for you.
Please, show me said evidence other than 2 very different periods in Larry’s career, with obvious mass and other things going on (very different look for him with a different/more modern gear usage). You understand this was a major play for Larry in a number of ways to become relevant again, to cash in, per say? (in no way begrudging him that)
The details of his arm did not change much, as RT_Nomad said, look at his insertions, the gaps, the things that make up the genetics, his bicep is bigger because he is much bigger, his arm had one place to go, up…and he is not flexing the same as the older photo.
To say you can change the genetic makeup of your muscle is not anything I’ve seen without oil, or other injections or implants, nor has anyone else. If this were really “well evidenced”, I would think I and those who have done this for decades would know this…right? But you, you have broken the “code”, evidenced by these amazing photos!
I made a post recently about the “google experts” that post up bs that they think proves a point, when it doesn’t. These 2 photos are not proof of anything other than a much smaller Larry, post Mr.O, and one who is making a push for relevance again and is pushing past what he accomplished by any means.
I guess those born with bad genetics have no excuse anymore, there was NEVER any real excuse…this really is laughable. I cannot believe someone posted this, well evidenced my you know what.
SMH.
Take care.
How does one progress with this beyond bodyweight? It seems like I’d be switching this out by the 2nd training day because I’d have eclipsed the top end of the rep-range.
I don’t think this comes first over Rack Pulls, DB Rows, BB Rows, or even most Machine Row variants - and it certainly isn’t one of the heaviest back exercises.
I can see times/places where I’d use this as an accessory, but this doesn’t align with DC training at all.
The ability to add/remove weight “on the fly” is a strength, not a weakness. Weight is placed in the lap, which can then be dumped for additional reps. For what it is worth-it looks easier than a conventional chin, but isn’t as easy as it looks.
Regarding it being “first”-my point is that it is not an outrageous assertion, given the nature of the exercise, and given the other “high” lat emg activity exercises. The last exercise shown in “peak’ activation is basically the same exercise, at a “bad’ angle for lat activation (optimal line of force is off for lats). I think exercises being “best” are individual, and highly dependent on what the goal is. I also think that EMG doesn’t prove an exercise is “number 1”, but it does strongly evidence that the exercise is going to be effective for many people. Again…the point is it is not outrageous to say the exercise is “best” if one is going to pick a best exercise
Regarding “doesn’t align with DC training”…. Any research or even casual inquiry into DC training is going to show that statement is incorrect. That’s the only way I can put it. A quick Google of “DC training – Rack Chins” or even “Rack Chins” will net you a bunch of DC context with rack chins. It is “the” go-to width exercise for many people who do “it” (DC training).
I’m pretty sure we’re talking about a different “DC Training”. If the one you’re talking about isn’t “DoggCrapp”, then you can ignore my last post.
That is just lighting, being in contest shape and oiled up.
[quote=“asmonius, post:25, topic:281753”]
There are a bunch of Strawmen in these replies. I’ll try to address them objectively.
Please, show me said evidence other than 2 very different periods in Larry’s career, with obvious mass and other things going on (very different look for him with a different/more modern gear usage). You understand this was a major play for Larry in a number of ways to become relevant again, to cash in, per say? (in no way begrudging him that)
He made an intentional attempt to improve his biceps peak. Did it improve or not? Objectively, it improved. I said specifically, it doesn’t “prove”, it “evidences”. Big difference. The “major play” to become relevant is speculation. It also negates the reality of the change. “Mass”, “gear”… It sounds like you are acknowledging that there is an apparent change. I’m good with that, as I said, this isn’t going to “prove” anything. It simply evidence for an inductive argument.
The details of his arm did not change much, as RT_Nomad said, look at his insertions, the gaps, the things that make up the genetics, his bicep is bigger because he is much bigger, his arm had one place to go, up…and he is not flexing the same as the older photo.
To say you can change the genetic makeup of your muscle is not anything I’ve seen without oil, or other injections or implants, nor has anyone else. If this were really “well evidenced”, I would think I and those who have done this for decades would know this…right? But you, you have broken the “code”, evidenced by these amazing photos!
I didn’t say change the genetic make up. You did. A muscle can gain size, correct? Doesn’t change the genetic makeup. A muscle can add or subtract sarcomeres (length). Doesn’t change the genetic make up. One can emphasize parts of muscles with separate innervations (sternal, clavicular, sternocostal pecs). Doesn’t change the genetic make up.
So the question here is "can you emphasize parts of a muscle regionally, specifically different segments along the proximal/distal length? The evidence which, importantly, simply goes along with what bodybuilders experience shows (inner chest, peak, upper/middle/lower lats, etc) is yes. In fact, it’s not evidence. It’s “you can do it, depending on exercise selection”.
This basically addresses the exact issue:
What is regional hypertrophy, and how does it happen? | by Chris Beardsley | Medium
I made a post recently about the “google experts” that post up bs that they think proves a point, when it doesn’t. These 2 photos are not proof of anything other than a much smaller Larry, post Mr.O, and one who is making a push for relevance again and is pushing past what he accomplished by any means.
Again, didn’t say it was proof. I said it was evidence. Whether you realize it, or not, most knowledge is not deductive, it’s inductive. Meaning, evidence accumulates from various sources, which tends to point to a “truth”. You also may not realize, that most of this inductive evidence is anecdote and observation. Example-I’ll bet you wouldn’t get into a cage with starving tiger wearing a meat necklace. But I’ll also bet you never read a “study” saying you couldn’t do it.
I guess those born with bad genetics have no excuse anymore, there was NEVER any real excuse…this really is laughable. I cannot believe someone posted this, well evidenced my you know what.
What’s laughable is the massive Strawman argument you are making here. This has little to do with “genetics”; it has to do with adaptation (optimizing length/tension points, or WHATEVER the “reason” our bodies adapt in the way they do). Just like the fact that you can build bigger muscles doesn’t make everyone Mr. Olympia, or the fact that you CAN emphasize upper pecs, guarantees everyone will have giant upper pecs you can stand a glass on.
Regarding your “Google experts”. The armchair experts are the ones who say you CAN’T build “peak” or emphasize “inner” or “outer” chest. YOU are the one arguing with basically every Mr. Olympia, Universe, America and saying they are wrong. I’m simply evidencing what these guys believe and have believed. The “Google experts” are the ones on BB.com telling Ron Coleman he doesn’t know how to train.
Have a good week.
DC, DoggCrapp, Dante Trudel.
Ask him yourself he is responsive normally to reasonable inquiry. His likely response “I don’t know about “best” but it works well, likely because of the stretch provided by flexing the hips”. We use it a lot in our training programs." That’s just a guess.
My understanding, after reading through Cycling for Pennies, was that the heaviest exercises that target a muscle should be prioritized first. This would usually imply things like weighted chins, row variants, etc.
I scanned back through his original condensed writeup and never saw anything that differs from what I said about prioritizing the heaviest exercises. I have not gone over to IM to search this specifically, it just doesn’t seem to be a good fit for that purpose IMO.
Dante is pretty big on them buddy for lats.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BvC4352H9rk/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
1 Like
This is one of those exercises that surprised me, in that I thought “meh” but tried it, and it is at least as effective as chins.
The *slight lean back at the start seems to make a difference, as well as the stretch on the lats from the bottom (similar to a seated row due to the legs forward, causing a cascade of stretch in the lower areas).