Content uploaded by Ronald Snarr
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ronald Snarr on Nov 07, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Exercise Technique
The Exercise Technique Column provides detailed
explanations of proper exercise technique to optimize
performance and safety.
COLUMN EDITOR: Dawes Jay, PhD, CSCS*D,
NSCA-CPT*D, FNSCA
A Comparative Analysis
and Technique of the Lat
Pull-down
Ronald Snarr, MEd, CSCS*D,
1
Ryan M. Eckert, BS, CSCS, CPT,
2
and Patricia Abbott, PsyD
2
1
Department of Kinesiology, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama; and
2
School of Nutrition and Health
Promotion, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona
ABSTRACT
DIFFERING LITERATURE OVER THE
MOST EFFECTIVE METHOD OF
HOW TO PERFORM A LAT PULL-
DOWN (LP) IS PREVALENT
THROUGHOUT PEER-REVIEWED
JOURNALS. THIS COLUMN WILL
ANALYZE RESEARCH OF THE LP
AND EXAMINE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN COMMON VARIATIONS.
THIS ARTICLE WILL ALSO PROVIDE
A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPER
TECHNIQUE FOR THE TRADI-
TIONAL LP.
TYPE OF EXERCISE
The lat pull-down (LP) is a multi-
joint exercise involving move-
ments of the shoulder complex
(e.g., glenohumeral, scapulothoracic,
etc.) and the elbow joint, and is de-
signed to increase muscular capacity
of both the upper extremities and
torso. This exercise will provide a ben-
efit to those athletes requiring in-
creases in upper-body strength and
endurance. Although most sports do
not require an overhead pulling
movement, strengthening of the latis-
simus dorsi and glenohumeral sup-
porting musculature may enhance an
individual’s ability to transfer power
between the upper and lower extrem-
ities during movements, such as
swinging, throwing, and even sprint-
ing. Athletes who may gain the most
benefit from an overhead pulling
movement include gymnasts, swim-
mers, and wrestlers.
MUSCLES INVOLVED
Key musculature: latissimus dorsi, pos-
terior deltoid, rhomboids, trapezius,
biceps brachii (BB).
Secondary: teres minor, teres major,
pectoralis major, triceps brachii, infra-
spinatus, brachialis, and brachioradialis
(2,5,8,11,12).
BENEFITS OF THE EXERCISE
The LP is a multijoint exercise that is
designed to increase muscular capac-
ity of the upper body, particularly
strengthening of the musculature of
theglenohumeraljoint,aswellas
the primary mover (i.e., latissimus
dorsi [LD]). The LD is an integral
component of the posterior oblique
subsystem and also serves as part of
the posterior kinetic chain (1). This
subsystem plays an important role in
the transfer of forces between upper
and lower extremities, and is impor-
tant for movements such as opposite
arm swing, propulsion of gait, and
rotational movements (e.g., swinging
and throwing) (1).
Although previous techniques of the
LP consisted of pulling the bar behind-
the-neck, a more modern and safer
way to perform the exercise uses a pull
in front of the body (2,7,11,13). Pulling
the bar behind-the-head puts the
glenohumeral joint in a comprised
position (i.e., externally rotated, ab-
ducted, and horizontally abducted)
increasing the risk of shoulder injury
(6,13). Chronic use of the behind-
the-head LP increases the likelihood
of developing anterior instability (AI)
in the shoulder joint (6,9). AI in the
shoulder joint is often associated
with a variety of other soft tissue in-
juries such as supporting rotator cuff
Copyright ÓNational Strength and Conditioning Association Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 21
musculature, ligamentous, and carti-
laginous damage (10). With a transfer
to an anterior pull (i.e., in front of the
body),theLPbecomesamorefunc-
tional movement and reduces the
prevalence of injury (4).
By incorporating different variations
of the LP regarding grip width or
orientation, it may be possible to
emphasize and strengthen varying
muscle groups. The pronated, wide
grip LP (WG) is the most commonly
performed variation of the LP with
areputationtoproducethemost
activation of the LD. A close grip
LP (CG) typically consists of a pro-
nated grip roughly shoulder width
apart. By decreasing the distance
between the hands, the arms can no
longer primarily adduct to complete
the movement and therefore must
work in both the frontal and sagittal
plane simultaneously (i.e., adduction
and extension). This change in joint
motion causes a substantial increase
in the range of motion through the
glenohumeral joint (508)andthe
elbow (158)(4).AneutralgripLP
(NG) is typically performed using
a v-bar. When performing this varia-
tion, the major difference is the
action at the shoulder joint during
the movement. Instead of primarily
adduction, the shoulder is concentri-
cally extending during the NG,
which affects muscular recruitment
(11). A supinated grip LP (SG), also
known as a reverse grip LP, is
performed with an underhand,
shoulder width grip on a traditional
pull-down bar. As with the NG, the
action at the shoulder is extension
compared with adduction. Although
all of these grip widths and orienta-
tions are possible during training, the
following provides a review of liter-
ature examining the electromyograph-
ical (EMG) patterns during these LP
variations.
A study performed by Signorile et al.
(11), compared the primary and sec-
ondary EMG activity of the shoulder
musculature during 4 types of the LP
(i.e., pronated WG anterior to the
body, WG posterior to the body,
pronated CG, and SG). Their results
demonstrated a greater activation of
theLDandthelongheadofthetri-
ceps brachii during the WG when
compared with the remaining varia-
tions (11). Although the pectoralis
major and posterior deltoid showed
no significant differences between
close, supinated, or WG anterior (all
were significantly greater than the
WG posterior) (11). However, Lehman
et al. (7), showed only a small, but
nonsignificant, increase in LD activa-
tion during the WG when compared
with a SG.
Sperandei et al. (13), elicited results
that provided no differences in LD
activation between 3 variations of
the LP. However, supporting muscu-
lature (i.e., pectoralis major, poste-
rior deltoid, and BB), all presented
significantly greater values within
the exercise variations. For instance,
pectoralis major showed significantly
greater activation during the WG in
front of the body compared with
a CG and behind-the-neck LP. The
BB activation was greater during the
behind-the-neck variation (13).
Furthermore, Lusk et al. (8), pro-
vided a closer examination of fore-
arm orientation and grip width
during the LP. Researchers tested 4
variations of the movement (pro-
nated WG, pronated CG, supinated
WG, and supinated CG) to deter-
mine whether an EMG difference
existed within the LD, BB, or
middle trapezius (MT). Results dem-
onstrated that the LD was activated
to a greater extent with a pronated
grip (regardless of width) when
compared with the SG. However,
BBandMTshowednodifferences,
despite grip width and forearm ori-
entation changes (8).
More recently, Andersen et al. (2),
studied 3 different pronated grip
widths (i.e., WG, medium, and nar-
row) to determine whether the LD,
MT, BB, or infraspinatus was acti-
vated to a greater or lesser extent
among the variations. Researchers
also wanted to see if the grip
variations made a difference during
a 6 repetition maximum (RM) pro-
tocol. Results indicated that a narrow
andmediumgripshoweddifference
in EMG activity with load lifted, but
both were significantly higher than
WG. In terms of EMG patterns, there
was no difference between the grips
for the LD, MT, or infraspinatus.
However, when the movements were
analyzed concentrically and eccen-
trically, significant changes were
present. The LD and infraspinatus
were significantly higher during the
WG versus the narrow grip in the
eccentric phase; however, BB activ-
ity was significantly greater during
the concentric phase of the medium
grip when compared with the nar-
row (2).
Although all of the above aforemen-
tioned grip and orientation changes
can produce various differences in
EMG activity, LD activity may be
increased with proper instruction
alone. A study performed by Snyder
and Leech (12), demonstrated that
with specific training instruction
and kinesthetic feedback during
a LP, participants were able to sig-
nificantly increase LD activity while
still maintaining BB and teres major
activation levels. This study reinfor-
ces the aspect that without proper
technique during complex move-
ments, individuals may not be
receiving maximal benefits of an
exercise. Thus, the proper technique
for the WG is described in detail as
follows. The WG was chosen as it is
themostcommonmethodfor
the LP.
EXERCISE TECHNIQUE
STARTING POSITION
Before taking a seated position,
adjust the machine so the handles
can be grabbed from the seated posi-
tion, but while the arms are still fully
extended overhead.
Adjust the knee pad (if necessary) so
that knees are secured at an approx-
imate 908knee bend. This ensures
Exercise Technique
VOLUME 37 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2015
22
that the exerciser remains in contact
with the seat during the exercise.
Grasp the handles slightly wider
than shoulder width apart with
a closed, pronated grip.
Throughout the exercise, keep the
feet flat on the floor and the spine
in a neutral position with a slight
backward lean, approximately 70–
808of flexion at the hips (Figure 1).
CONCENTRIC PHASE
(DOWNWARD MOVEMENT)
Exhale while adducting the shoulder
and flexing the elbow in order to pull
the bar downward in front of
the body.
Avoid internally rotating the shoul-
der joint while pulling the bar
towards the body by keeping the el-
bows pointed towards the floor.
Continue to pull the bar toward the
body until it reaches chin level
(Figure 2).
This should be performed under
control at a rate of 2–4 seconds.
ECCENTRIC PHASE (UPWARD
MOVEMENT)
Inhale while controllably abducting
the shoulder and extending the
elbow as the bar ascends toward
the initial starting position.
Continue to abduct the shoulder and
extend the elbow until the elbows
reach full extension (avoid shrugging
the shoulders to maintain muscle
tension throughout the shoulder
adductors and elbow flexors)
(Figure 1).
This should be performed under
control at a rate of 2–4 seconds.
KEY CHECKPOINTS AND COMMON
ERRORS
While performing the WG, fitness
professionals should monitor the tech-
nique for the following key check-
points and common errors:
While in the seated position, allow
for only a slight backward lean,
approximately 70–808of flexion at
the hips.
Avoid an excessive backward lean
(i.e., less than 708of flexion at the
hips) and trunk flexion (rounding).
Keep the spine and neck in a neu-
tral position throughout the
movement.
Avoid elevation (i.e., shrugging) of
the shoulders at the top of the eccen-
tric phase to maintain tension in the
shoulder adductors.
Maintain a slow and controlled
tempo (2–4 seconds) during the con-
centric and eccentric phases.
Be sure to avoid the use of momen-
tum (by swaying backward) to assist
the movement. If this occurs reduce
the load lifted.
Also, be certain to avoid lifting off of
the seat by either use of the knee pad
(if available) or by reducing the
external resistance.
VARIATIONS
For certain individuals, access to the LP
machine may not be practical (e.g., in-
dividuals using a wheelchair or shorter
athletes who can successfully stabilize
the lower body with the knee pad).
Therefore, a variation or modification
to the traditional LP may be necessary.
The same movement can be performed
using a cable crossover station in which
2 independent handles are used in place
of a traditional LP bar. The handles
should be set to an overhead position.
This can either be performed in a stand-
ing position for shorter athletes, or the
use of bench for a seated position is also
advised. Individuals performing this
variation should be instructed to grasp
a handle in each hand and perform the
LP with the same movement tech-
nique, by adducting at the shoulder
joints and flexing at the elbows to pull
each handle toward the body in the
frontal plane. The modification for in-
dividuals using a wheelchair is per-
formed using the same techniques as
stated above as well. However, the indi-
vidual should position themselves in
the middle of the cable crossover
handles.
Please note: A spotter may be neces-
sary for these variations and modifica-
tions to assist the individual with
Figure 1. Starting position of the lat pull-down.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 23
pulling each handle from the machine
to start and replacing them when
finished.
SETS, REPETITIONS, AND
PROGRESSION
Programming variables (e.g., sets,
loads, and repetitions) depend on the
overall goals of the individuals, as well
as their level of experience. The guide-
lines below are recommended by the
National Strength and Conditioning
Association in Essentials of Strength
Training and Conditioning (3).
Strength: 3–5 sets, #6 repetitions, 2–
5 minutes of rest period.
Hypertrophy: 3–5 sets, 6–12 repeti-
tions, 60–90 seconds of rest period.
Endurance: 2–3 sets, 12–25 repeti-
tions, #30 seconds of rest period.
When the desired goal is muscle
hypertrophy, novice, and intermediate
exercisers are recommended to use
loads of 67–80% of 1 RM for 8–12 rep-
etitions, 1–3 sets, and with a rest period
of 1–2 minutes. Advanced exercisers
may use 67–85% of 1 RM for 6–12
repetitions, 3–6 sets with rest ranging
from 30–90 seconds based on load.
Additionally, when the desired goal is
local muscular endurance, training rec-
ommendations include loads of 65–
75% 1 RM for 10–15 repetitions, 1–3
sets, and with rest period of less than 30
seconds (3).
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The LP is one of the more popular
back exercises providing an increase
in the muscular strength and endur-
ance of the shoulder adductors, partic-
ularly the LD. This multijoint
movement may also lead to an
increased ability to transfer power
between the upper and lower extrem-
ities; thereby potentially providing
a benefit to athletes in which throwing,
swinging, and overhead-type move-
ments are essential. Although research
in this area is inconsistent, individuals’
may still benefit from using multiple
variations of the LP while avoiding
the behind-the-neck pull-down.
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
The authors report no conflicts of interest
and no source of funding.
Ronald L. Snarr
is a Ph.D. student
at The University
of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL.
Ryan M. Eckert
is a M.S. student
at Arizona State
University,
Phoenix, AZ.
Patricia A.
Abbott is a M.S.
student at
Arizona State
University,
Phoenix, AZ.
REFERENCES
1. Aaberg A. Muscle Mechanics (2nd ed).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2006. pp.
31–32.
2. Andersen V, Fimland MS, Wilk E,
Skoglund A, and Saeterbakken AH. Effects
of grip width on muscle strength and
activation in the lat pull-down. J Strength
Cond Res 28: 1135–1142, 2014.
3. Baechle TR and Earle RW. Essentials of
Strength Training and Conditioning (3rd
ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
pp. 406–421.
4. Crate T. Analysis of the lat pulldown.
Strength Cond J 19: 26–29, 1997.
5. Doma K, Deakin GB, and Ness KF.
Kinematic and electromyographic
comparisons between chin-ups and lat-pull
down exercises. Sports Biomech 12: 302–
313, 2013.
6. Kolber MJ, Corrao M, and Hanney WJ.
Characteristics of anterior shoulder
instability and hyperlaxity in the weight-
training population. J Strength Cond Res
27: 1333–1341, 2013.
7. Lehman GJ, Buchan DD, Lundy A, Myers N,
and Nalborczyk A. Variations in muscle
activation levels during traditional
latissimus dorsi weight training exercises:
Figure 2. Ending position of the lat pull-down.
Exercise Technique
VOLUME 37 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2015
24
An experimental study. Dyn Med 3: 4,
2004.
8. Lusk SJ, Hale BD, and Russell DM. Grip
width and forearm orientation effects on
muscle activity during the lat pull-down.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 1895–1900,
2010.
9. McCluskey GM and Getz BA.
Pathophysiology of anterior shoulder
instability. J Athl Train 35: 268–272, 2000.
10. Murray IR, Ahmed I, White NJ, and
Robinson CM. Traumatic anterior shoulder
instability in the athlete. Scand J Med Sci
Sports 23: 387–405, 2013.
11. Signorile JF, Zink AJ, and Szwed SP. A
comparative electromyographical
investigation of muscle utilization patterns
using various hand positions during the lat
pull-down. J Strength Cond Res 16: 539–
546, 2002.
12. Snyder BJ and Leech JR. Voluntary
increase in latissimus dorsi muscle activity
during the lat pull-down following expert
instruction. J Strength Cond Res 23:
2204–2209, 2009.
13. Sperandei S, Barros MA, Silveira-
Ju
´nior PC, and Oliveira CG.
Electromyographic analysis of three
different types of lat pull-down. J Strength
Cond Res 23: 2033–2038, 2009.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 25
