No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The Lat Pulldown
Abstract
The lat pulldown is an open kinetic chain, multijoint exercise that is appropriate for novice, intermediate, and advanced level exercisers and can be performed with a number of types f equipment and requires minimal equipment to perform. It can be progressed or regressed to increase and improve upper body muscular strength, endurance, hypertrophy, and performance of tasks that require upper body pulling strength. Its utility as a safe and effective strength development tool is predicated on sound instruction, effective supervision, and proper execution.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Pérez-Olea, JI, Valenzuela, PL, Aponte, C, and Izquierdo, M. Relationship between dryland strength and swimming performance: pull-up mechanics as a predictor of swimming speed. J Strength Cond Res 32(6): 1637-1642, 2018-This study aimed to examine the validity of the countermovement jump (CMJ) and the pull-up exercise as predictors of swimming performance. Twelve young male swimmers (Mean ± SD, 19 ± 3 years; 75 ± 10 kg; 180 ± 6 cm) with a homogenous level of performance (50-m freestyle time [50F]: 26.41 ± 1.44 seconds, coefficient of variance: 5.5%) participated in this study. Subjects performed a test of a single pull-up (PU) and a test of maximum number of pull-ups until muscular failure (PUF), and the mechanics of the ascending phase were recorded using a lineal force transducer. The height reached in a single CMJ test and the mean height during 30 consecutive CMJs were also determined. The swimmers' 50-m leg-only swimming time (50L) was also registered. The 50F time was strongly correlated with different variables of the PU (r = -0.76 to -0.80; p ≤ 0.05) and PUF test (r = -0.64 to -0.88; p ≤ 0.05), but not with the number of pull-ups performed. A significant relationship between 50F and 50L was observed (r = 0.78; p ≤ 0.05), with no relationship between the CMJ tests and swimming performance. Furthermore, multiple linear regression showed that 50L and the relative loss of velocity during the PUF test accounted for 84% (p < 0.001) of the 50F performance variance. This study shows the validity of the analysis of pull-up mechanics and 50L to predict short-distance swimming performance in trained swimmers, confirming the importance of upper-limb strength and leg kick on this sport.
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 TRADITIONAL LP.
HAND ORIENTATION (SUPINATED, NEUTRAL, PRONATED) AND GRIP WIDTH ARE COMMONLY VARIED DURING PULL-UPS AND LAT PULL-DOWNS IN AN ATTEMPT TO FOCUS THE TRAINING ON SPECIFIC MUSCLE GROUPS OR TO ENSURE THAT THE MOVEMENT IS SPECIFIC TO THE SPORTING ACTION. THE AIM OF THIS ARTICLE WAS TO IDENTIFY IF VARYING GRIP WIDTH AND HAND ORIENTATION EFFECTS MUSCLE ACTIVITY DURING PULL-UPS AND LAT PULL-DOWNS. IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT USING ROTATING HANDLES DURING PULL-UPS OR USING A PRONATED GRIP DURING LAT PULL-DOWNS TENDS TO RESULT IN THE GREATEST ACTIVATION OF THE LATISSIMUS DORSI, WITH NO DIFFERENCE IN LATISSIMUS DORSI ACTIVITY BETWEEN GRIP WIDTHS.
Based on electromyographic (EMG) studies, an anterior (in front of the face) wide grip with a pronated forearm has been recommended as the optimal lat pull-down (LPD) variation for strengthening the latissimus dorsi (LD) (Signorile, JF, Zink, A, and Szwed, S. J Strength Cond Res 16: 539-546, 2002; Wills, R, Signorile, J, Perry, A, Tremblay, L, and Kwiatkowski, K. Med Sci Sports Exerc 26: S20, 1994). However, it is not clear whether this finding was because of grip width or forearm orientation. This study aimed to resolve this issue by comparing wide-pronated, wide-supinated, narrow-pronated, and narrow-supinated grips of an anterior LPD. Twelve healthy men performed the 4 grip variations using an experimentally determined load of 70% of 1 repetition maximum. Two trials of 5 repetitions were analyzed for each grip type. Participants maintained a cadence of 2-second concentric and 2-second eccentric phases. The grip widths were normalized for each individual by using a wide grip that corresponded to their carrying width and a narrow grip that matched their biacromial diameter. Surface EMG of the LD, middle trapezius (MT), and biceps brachii (BB) was recorded, and the root mean square of the EMG was normalized, using a maximum isometric voluntary contraction. Repeated-measures analysis of variance for each muscle revealed that a pronated grip elicited greater LD activity than a supinated grip (p < 0.05), but had no influence of grip type on the MT and BB muscles. Based on these findings, an anterior LPD with pronated grip is recommended for maximally activating the LD, irrespective of the grip width (carrying width or biacromial diameter).
Background
Exercise beliefs abound regarding variations in strength training techniques on muscle activation levels yet little research has validated these ideas. The purpose of the study is to determine muscle activation level, expressed as a percent of a normalization contraction, of the latissimus dorsi, biceps brachii and middle trapezius/rhomboids muscle groups during a series of different exercise tasks.
Methods
The average muscle activity during four tasks; wide grip pulldown, reverse grip pull down [RGP], seated row with retracted scapula, and seated rows with non-retracted scapulae was quantified during two 10 second isometric portions of the four exercises. A repeated measures ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test was used to determine the influence of exercise type on muscle activity for each muscle.
Results & Discussion
No exercise type influenced biceps brachii activity. The highest latissimus dorsi to biceps ratio of activation occurred during the wide grip pulldown and the seated row. Highest levels of myoelectric activity in the middle trapezius/rhomboid muscle group occurred during the seated row. Actively retracting the scapula did not influence middle trapezius/rhomboid activity.
Conclusion
Variations in latissimus dorsi exercises are capable of producing small changes in the myoelectric activity of the primary movers.
Seventy percent of the population will experience neck pain (np) at some point in their lifetime. Although the etiology of np is multifactorial, discogenic pathology has been implicated as a common source of symptoms. Many of these individuals seek conservative care that requires long-term management strategies extending beyond formal rehabilitation. Thus, strength and conditioning specialists may find themselves in an opportune position to guide clients in their pursuit of premorbid activity levels. This article presents an overview of discogenic pathology and the continuum of care. Emphasis is placed on post-rehabilitation management strategies including exercise programming, precautions, and interdisciplinary communication. For a video abstract of this article, see supplemental digital content 1 (see video, http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A196).
Andersen, V, Fimland, MS, Wiik, 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(4): 1135-1142, 2014-The lat pull-down is one of the most popular compound back exercises. Still, it is a general belief that a wider grip activates the latissimus dorsi more than a narrow one, but without any broad scientific support. The aim of the study was to compare 6 repetition maximum (6RM) load and electromyographic (EMG) activity in the lat pull-down using 3 different pronated grip widths. Fifteen men performed 6RM in the lat pull-down with narrow, medium, and wide grips (1, 1.5, and 2 times the biacromial distance) in a randomized and counterbalanced order. The 6RM strengths with narrow (80.3 ± 7.2 kg) and medium grip (80 ± 7.1 kg) were higher than wide grip (77.3 ± 6.3 kg; p = 0.02). There was similar EMG activation between grip widths for latissimus, trapezius, or infraspinatus, but a tendency for biceps brachii activation to be greater for medium vs. narrow (p = 0.09), when the entire movement was analyzed. Analyzing the concentric phase separately revealed greater biceps brachii activation using the medium vs. narrow grip (p = 0.03). In the eccentric phase, there was greater activation using wide vs. narrow grip for latissimus and infraspinatus (p ≤ 0.04), and tendencies for medium greater than narrow for latissimus, and medium greater than wide for biceps (both p = 0.08), was observed. Collectively, a medium grip may have some minor advantages over small and wide grips; however, athletes and others engaged in resistance training can generally expect similar muscle activation which in turn should result in similar hypertrophy gains with a grip width that is 1-2 times the biacromial distance.
The purpose of this study was to compare kinematics and muscle activity between chin-ups and lat-pull down exercises and between muscle groups during the two exercises. Normalized electromyography (EMG) of biceps brachii (BB), triceps brachii (TB), pectoralis major (PM), latissimus dorsi (LD), rectus abdominus (RA), and erector spinae (ES) and kinematics of back, shoulder, and seventh cervical vertebrae (C7) was analysed during chin-ups and lat-pull down exercises. Normalized EMG of BB and ES and kinematics of shoulder and C7 for chin-ups were greater than lat-pull down exercises during the concentric phase (p < 0.05). For the eccentric phase, RA during lat-pull down exercises was greater than chin-ups and the kinematics of C7 during chin-ups was greater than lat-pull down exercises (p < 0.05). For chin-ups, BB, LD, and ES were greater than PM during the concentric phase, whereas BB and LD were greater than TB, and LD was greater than RA during the eccentric phase (p < 0.05). For lat-pull down exercise, BB and LD were greater than PM, TB, and ES during the concentric phase, whereas LD was greater than PM, TB, and BB during the eccentric phase (p < 0.05). Subsequently, chin-ups appears to be a more functional exercise.
RESISTANCE TRAINING METHODS HAVE BEEN BROADLY CLASSIFIED INTO 3 CATEGORIES: CONSTANT, ACCOMMODATING, AND VARIABLE RESISTANCE. VARIABLE RESISTANCE TRAINING METHODS, WHICH INCLUDES CAMS AND LEVERS, CHAINS, AND RUBBER-BASED RESISTANCE, WILL BE THE FOCUS OF THIS ARTICLE. THE KINEMATICS, KINETICS, AND HUMAN STRENGTH CURVE CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE 3 TYPES OF VARIABLE RESISTANCE ARE DISCUSSED, GIVEN THAT EACH RESISTANCE TYPE MAY OFFER A UNIQUE SET OF MECHANICAL STIMULI AND, HENCE, MUSCULOSKELETAL ADAPTATIONS. THE PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH FORM OF VARIABLE RESISTANCE WILL ALSO BE CONSIDERED.
The popularity of resistance training (RT) is evident by the more than 45 million Americans who engage in strength training regularly. Although the health and fitness benefits ascribed to RT are generally agreed upon, participation is not without risk. Acute and chronic injuries attributed to RT have been cited in the epidemiological literature among both competitive and recreational participants. The shoulder complex in particular has been alluded to as one of the most prevalent regions of injury. The purpose of this manuscript is to present an overview of documented shoulder injuries among the RT population and where possible discern mechanisms of injury and risk factors. A literature search was conducted in the PUBMED, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and OVID databases to identify relevant articles for inclusion using combinations of key words: resistance training, shoulder, bodybuilding, weightlifting, shoulder injury, and shoulder disorder. The results of the review indicated that up to 36% of documented RT-related injuries and disorders occur at the shoulder complex. Trends that increased the likelihood of injury were identified and inclusive of intrinsic risk factors such as joint and muscle imbalances and extrinsic risk factors, namely, that of improper attention to exercise technique. A majority of the available research was retrospective in nature, consisting of surveys and descriptive epidemiological reports. A paucity of research was available to identify predictive variables leading to injury, suggesting the need for future prospective-based investigations.
The purpose of this work was to evaluate the activity of the primary motor muscles during the performance of 3 lat pull-down techniques through surface electromyography (EMG). Twenty-four trained adult men performed 5 repetitions of behind-the-neck (BNL), front-of-the-neck (FNL), and V-bar exercises at 80% of 1 repetition maximum. For each technique, the root mean square from the EMG signal was registered from the pectoralis major (PM), latissimus dorsi (LD), posterior deltoid (PD), and biceps brachii (BB) and further normalized in respect to that which presented the highest value of all the techniques. A series of two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare the results, with Tukey-Kramer as the post hoc test and alpha = 0.05. During the concentric phase, PM value showed the FNL to be significantly higher than V-bar/BNL and V-bar higher than BNL. During the eccentric phase, FNL/V-bar was higher than BNL. For LD, there was no difference between techniques. PD presented BNL higher than FNL/V-bar and FNL higher than V-bar in the concentric phase and BNL higher than V-bar in the eccentric phase. BB exhibited BNL higher than V-bar/FNL and V-bar higher than FNL in both concentric and eccentric phases. Considering the main objectives of lat pull-down, we concluded that FNL is the better choice, whereas BNL is not a good lat pull-down technique and should be avoided. V-bar could be used as an alternative.
Shoulder disorders attributed to weight training are well documented in the literature; however, a paucity of evidence-based research exists to describe risk factors inherent to participation. Shoulder joint and muscle characteristics in the recreational weight training (RWT) population were investigated to determine specific risk-related adaptations that may occur from participation. Ninety participants, men between the ages of 19 and 47 (mean age 28.9), including 60 individuals who participated in upper-extremity RWT and 30 controls with no record of RWT participation, were recruited. Active range of motion (AROM), posterior shoulder tightness (PST), body weight-adjusted strength values, and agonist/antagonist strength ratios were compared between the RWT participants and the control group. Statistical analysis identified significant differences (p < 0.001) between the groups when analyzing shoulder mobility. The RWT participants had decreased mobility when compared with the control group for all AROM measurements except external rotation, which was greater. Strength ratios were significantly greater in the RWT group when compared with the control group (p <or= 0.001), implying agonist/antagonist muscle imbalances. The findings of this investigation suggest that RWT participants are predisposed to strength and mobility imbalances as a result of training. The imbalances identified have been associated with shoulder disorders in the general and athletic population; thus, these imbalances may place RWT participants at risk for injury. Common training patterns are biased toward large muscle groups such as the pectorals and deltoids but neglect muscles responsible for stabilization such as the external rotators and lower trapezius. Exercise selection that mitigates strength and mobility imbalances may serve to prevent injury in this population. Clinicians and strength and conditioning professionals should consider the biomechanical stresses and adaptations associated with RWT when prescribing upper-extremity exercises.
The ability of the health care professional to make correct decisions about the progression of weight-training is critical to the rehabilitation process. The purpose of this article is to describe our approach to modification of weight-lifting techniques using the injured shoulder as a model. Additionally, the impact of various upper extremity weight-training techniques on healthy athletes is discussed. The effects of grip, hand spacing, bar trajectory, and start and finishing positions on microtraumatic injury and return to weight-training activities after injury are considered. Several weight-training functional progressions for common multijoint exercises (such as bench press, shoulder press, power clean) are presented. Adaptations for periodization are also presented for implementation in the rehabilitation sequence. The weight-training modifications described in this paper will assist the health professional to safely return athletes to the weight room after shoulder injury.