Thread: should strength be equal between opp muscles?

Originally Posted by higney85

i know the title may be confusing but I was wondering if I am weird in how I train.... I try to keep opposing muscles equal. For example... I typically do rows with the same weight and reps as I do presses. So on chest day I will do sets of 10 reps with 100lb dumbells (flat db bench), and on back day I will do the same number of sets and reps with 100lb db's (bent over rows). When I do high pulls I use the same weight as I military press and for curls and tricep ext I do the same. For leg ext and leg curls I also do the same. Is this normal? Does this promote symetry or am I just dumb?

It's actually really smart. Most people don't balance their routines worth a crap. I see people who can bench press 225 for reps struggling with 135 on bent rows. I'm like WTF.

well that makes me feel better!

Originally Posted by CowPimp

It's actually really smart. Most people don't balance their routines worth a crap. I see people who can bench press 225 for reps struggling with 135 on bent rows. I'm like WTF.

Are you saying that those people shouldn't keep trying to progress on their bench until they can row about 225?

there are times when you may be even and there are times when you may not be even at all. Look at someone that squats narrow and ATG. Their squat may not be the same as their deadlift. It defenilty wouldn't be like someone that squats and deadlifts with a wide stance (and only to parallel like a powerlifter). In general there are muscle ratios that are common like 2:1 quad to ham strength etc.....The important thing is to balance your routine in the planes of motion and try and keep the volume (and volume load) as close as possible to being even. I mean, I wont beat myself up if the difference is minimal (like I bench 245 for 5 reps and I can row only 225 for 5 reps). But, if the difference is large like cowpimp suggested I think that you have a serious problem there and may want to look into doing remedial work for the weaker muscle group.

that makes sense.. I have just noticed that I feel like my chest and bi's are not necessarilly stronger but look bigger than back and tris and that doesnt make sense to me. I think it may be genetic or simply how i train.

most people have over powering chest and bi's (and shoulder) compared to their backs and tri's because they train like jackasses and don't balance their program.

You have different support muscles involved as well, so the hope in such balance is rather misguided. Unless you did bench/bi routines for 6 months before you started working your back I wouldn't worry that much.

Now if you want to get serious about having true balance, then perhaps you'd like to do some swiss ball training and stretching routines with the ladies.

well i guess I am a jackass.... in all seriousness though- I do the same volume each week for back/chest and bi/tri. The weights are pretty close all around but I find that I am not symmetrical. I have tried upping the vloume on the lagging parts but find myself feeling worse and falling back (overtraining possibly). The only thing I can think is the excercises that I do give me more of a feeling of isolating the chest/bis as opposed to the back/tri workouts.

I do much more back volume than chest, the chest is tiny and simple yet the back is a complex network of muscles and covers a lot of area.

Biceps, small. Triceps, large and powerful.

Originally Posted by Mudge

You have different support muscles involved as well, so the hope in such balance is rather misguided. Unless you did bench/bi routines for 6 months before you started working your back I wouldn't worry that much.

Now if you want to get serious about having true balance, then perhaps you'd like to do some swiss ball training and stretching routines with the ladies.

Yeah, he has a point here. Doing a bent row and a bench press are two different animals. Nonetheless, a large disparity like I mentioned previously is something that needs to be addressed. I can bench a little more than I can row, but the difference isn't huge. A lot of it probably has to do with the fact that you have to stabilize your body to a much larger degree when you're doing bent rows.

I'm glad I like training pulling movements a lot more than pressing, gives me a better chance to keep the balance between the movements.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Yeah, he has a point here. Doing a bent row and a bench press are two different animals. Nonetheless, a large disparity like I mentioned previously is something that needs to be addressed. I can bench a little more than I can row, but the difference isn't huge. A lot of it probably has to do with the fact that you have to stabilize your body to a much larger degree when you're doing bent rows.

exactly. things are not even in the two exercises. the stability is different. that is why, when they measure quad/ham flexability in a test it is on a leg ext and leg curl machine.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Yeah, he has a point here. Doing a bent row and a bench press are two different animals. Nonetheless, a large disparity like I mentioned previously is something that needs to be addressed. I can bench a little more than I can row, but the difference isn't huge. A lot of it probably has to do with the fact that you have to stabilize your body to a much larger degree when you're doing bent rows.

I row way more than I bench, however:

I use straps
I'm not doing 100% strict movements like on a bench, body english is quite natural (although rather minimal I think you'd see from my clips)
I also am not bent over 90º like on a bench press

I can row about 20% more than I can bench given equal repetitions.

Originally Posted by Mudge

I row way more than I bench, however:

I use straps
I'm not doing 100% strict movements like on a bench, body english is quite natural (although rather minimal I think you'd see from my clips)
I also am not bent over 90º like on a bench press

I can row about 20% more than I can bench given equal repetitions.

Yeah, the "body english" definitely changes things. Also, I noticed you take a very upright stance when you row. It seems to work for you though, heh.

It seems to me that the back/bi combo would be slightly bigger and stronger generally than the chest/tri combo.

Do you think there's any evolutionary reason to have those muscle groups balanced?

I would have thought that anyone that can row slightly more than they can bench would be quite normal, but there are also all the reasons that Mudge stated for that happening.

I think anyone that benches twice what they can row would not look balanced in muscaluture at all.

Originally Posted by KarlW

It seems to me that the back/bi combo would be slightly bigger and stronger generally than the chest/tri combo.

Do you think there's any evolutionary reason to have those muscle groups balanced?

I don't know if evolutionary is the right word. You want opposing muscle groups balanced because it makes for better joint integrity. The shoulder complex is very complicated relative to other joints. It allows a wide range of movements. It is easy to upset the balance of this joint, and one reason shoulder issues are rampant in the lifting community.

Also, I think that having a strong back relative to your anterior pressing musculature is good because it helps improve your posture which prevents unecessary chronic stress on your spine. Again, a big reason why people have lower back problems is because of imbalances.

I find when back training mind to muscle is extremely important. If you don't got it i truly believe growth will be limited. I can bench much more than i can row(used to be a bit unbalanced in my training. typical chest,abs, and bis type guy but i always have done squats.)

Strange that the quad/ham ratio is about 2:1. I can SLDL about 325, ATG bottom back squat 285 and deadlift 425 (those are my PRs in each). From these numbers, it seems as though my hamstrings are nowhere near only half of my quads in strength. Also, I could do a yates row with much, much more weight than I could ever bench. Of course, this particular row has a shorter ROM than usual and is performed in a much different way, but it's still somewhat antagonistic I suppose.