Thread: Lower Lats

Reverse grip rows would be one, you can also do seated cable rows pulling close to your belly, with a close-grip.

Any row pulling to your belly button or lower. Heavy reverse grip rows are the best, however.

Originally posted by Sub-Zero
Besides close grip chins , wat exercises can I do to build up the lower portion of my lats.

None that won't build the upper portion at the same time and in proportion.

feel blessed you're wider at the top. That coupled with a small waist makes you look huge.

ONE ARM DUMBELL ROWS

I find that doing heavy dumbell rows on a decline bench instead of a flat bench will hit the lower lat where it attaches down low. The only isolation movement for lats is the pumphouse.

Originally posted by GYM GURU
ONE ARM DUMBELL ROWS

Agreed

TJohn

I do reverse grip barbell rows with an ez curl bar to the waist for lower lats. Just go heavy and hard on those and you will feel and notice a difference.

Why do those never hit my lower lats? They always seem to hit the whole thing.

Originally posted by Snake_Eyes
Why do those never hit my lower lats? They always seem to hit the whole thing.

Cause like TCD already said, the lat is one muscle and whatever you do is gonna hit the whole thing.

!Muy excellente!

One muscle GROUP but made up of individual fibers which connect at different angles to the fascia which connect at different angles along the vertebra.

Oh, and the barbell rows seem to stress my lower lats the most as well, as compared to other exercises anyway.

Originally posted by KryptoAllez
One muscle GROUP but made up of individual fibers which connect at different angles to the fascia which connect at different angles along the vertebra.

No Krypto, I'm afraid that it is in fact a single muscle, not a group.

The latissimus dorsi is just one muscle; it either contracts or it doesn't.

The traps, rhomboids, and other miscellaneous muscles of the upper back are structured like that; but they also have separate innervations for their varied components. Either way, its incredibly difficult, due to the way mechanical force is distributed through the muscle, to cause isolational growth in any one part of any muscle.

Originally posted by Snake_Eyes


No Krypto, I'm afraid that it is in fact a single muscle, not a group.

The latissimus dorsi is just one muscle; it either contracts or it doesn't.

The traps, rhomboids, and other miscellaneous muscles of the upper back are structured like that; but they also have separate innervations for their varied components. Either way, its incredibly difficult, due to the way mechanical force is distributed through the muscle, to cause isolational growth in any one part of any muscle.

Exactly, if lower lats did exist then you'd be able to make your lower-torso wider than your shoulders. Not many people like that walking about eh? (except for fat people.)

Originally posted by Snake_Eyes


No Krypto, I'm afraid that it is in fact a single muscle, not a group.

The latissimus dorsi is just one muscle; it either contracts or it doesn't.

The traps, rhomboids, and other miscellaneous muscles of the upper back are structured like that; but they also have separate innervations for their varied components. Either way, its incredibly difficult, due to the way mechanical force is distributed through the muscle, to cause isolational growth in any one part of any muscle.

But... is it not true that the latissimus dorsi, one muscle but it is also actually made up of MANY individual muscle FIBERS which insert at different angles into the fascia? Is that not true? Cause I believe it is, just from what I have read and see in illustrations of muscle anatomy. Therefore, if the muscle fibers are inserted/attached at different angles, would it not be possible to place more STRESS on some fibers (perhaps the lower fibers in this case) than on others? Maybe they ALL contract, to SOME degree, but perhaps because of the angle of movement you are using, you can actually contract some sections MORE than others or to more of a degree. Cause it's not like the sections are all "glued" together or something. It's not one solid block.

Personally, I think that the people who keep arguing that you can't target or stress certain sections of muscles more than others are looking at muscle anatomy with too simplistic of a view. The muscles are made up of INDIVIDUAL fibers, INDIVIDUAL cells and this alone should show that it is not as simplistic as saying "it's one muscle and either it contracts or it doesn't", it is just NOT that simple! The idea that a muscle would respond in a uniform fashion just seems implausible in light of the fact that there are distinct physiological/anatomical differences within a single muscle! And that's my 2 cents.

Originally posted by KryptoAllez
But... is it not true that the latissimus dorsi, one muscle but it is also actually made up of MANY individual muscle FIBERS which insert at different angles into the fascia? Is that not true? Cause I believe it is, just from what I have read and see in illustrations of muscle anatomy. Therefore, if the muscle fibers are inserted/attached at different angles, would it not be possible to place more STRESS on some fibers (perhaps the lower fibers in this case) than on others? Maybe they ALL contract, to SOME degree, but perhaps because of the angle of movement you are using, you can actually contract some sections MORE than others or to more of a degree. Cause it's not like the sections are all "glued" together or something. It's not one solid block.

You're quite correct. Its not a solid block, and it is composed of many different fibers. However, neurologically, muscles aren't wired that way. When the signal is sent to contract, it contracts.

Angle of pennation (the angle of attachment) isn't really a factor, for a reason I'll elaborate on in a moment.

There actually has been research done on so-called "compartmentalization" of motor units-- this would be what you're referring to.

However, there's very little work done on it, and what work was done involved very light weights or electrostimulation-- while this did show some preferential growth in different parts of a muscle, there's two reasons I discount it.

Firstly, its a genetic thing. The MU compartments don't change with training, so if your muscle is predisposed to grow in one section over another, then that is how it will grow, regardless of the way you train.

Secondly, the tensions used were too small to cause hypertrophy. Once the tension becomes high enough to cause growth, the muscle's mechanism of transmitting force to the insertions will all but eliminate any preferential tensions in individual parts of the muscle, so even the MU compartments are a moot point.

Personally, I think that the people who keep arguing that you can't target or stress certain sections of muscles more than others are looking at muscle anatomy with too simplistic of a view. The muscles are made up of INDIVIDUAL fibers, INDIVIDUAL cells and this alone should show that it is not as simplistic as saying "it's one muscle and either it contracts or it doesn't", it is just NOT that simple! The idea that a muscle would respond in a uniform fashion just seems implausible in light of the fact that there are distinct physiological/anatomical differences within a single muscle! And that's my 2 cents.

Anatomy's part of my reasoning, yes. However, more in-depth study of the neurological processes at work and mechanical properties of the muscle itself have only reinforced my viewpoint.

I'm curious where you guys latched onto this idea, that you cannot target individual areas.

Read above.

However, neurologically, muscles aren't wired that way. When the signal is sent to contract, it contracts.

But there can be thousands of different motor units within a single muscle group (such as the latissimus) and you are saying they cannot be fired separately? You are saying that ALL thousands of motor units (in charge of groups of specific muscle fibers) get fired equally AND at the same time?

I sure don't think so. I don't think it is that simple. And I know I said before how the body's nervous system recruits different types of fibers depending on what demand is placed on it. And how you yourself said that the longer the duration/more reps you do, the more fibers are stimulated to perform the same amount of work because of some fibers being fatigued. More fibers are called upon/activiated as more demands are placed on the muscle. So how can you say that muscles aren't wired that way? You are saying that certain motor units perhaps in the lower section of the lats cannot be fired without firing motor units in the upper portion of the lats? I don't agree.

And there have been studies using EMG and magnetic resonance tests utilizing different exercises, SHOWING more activity in certain areas. And personally I don't even need a study to show me that, I can FEEL differences between changing exercises, varying grips and angles. I don't need a study to show me that. Again, I think sometimes that people are viewing things too simplistically. Give the human body some credit, the nervous system is much more complex than what I believe you are saying it is. Continuing my 2 cents.

I use pullovers as one of my last back exercises. Pumps my lats up nicely.

Well, essentially, yes. Different types of muscle fibers are distributed rather evenly throughout the muscle. Recruiting a different type of fiber is a different thing from preferential recruitment of muscle fibers in different parts of the muscle.

EMG and MRI tests aren't entirely accurate. They show activation, yes, but they don't account for tension. Tension is what causes the growth.

Difference in feel with different exercises is natural, and its because its a different movement. The proprioceptors give different feedback for any different movement. A dumbell press feels different from a barbell press, but the same muscles are working.

Thanks for the help and .....

GO KRYPTO !!

Originally posted by Snake_Eyes
Well, essentially, yes. Different types of muscle fibers are distributed rather evenly throughout the muscle. Recruiting a different type of fiber is a different thing from preferential recruitment of muscle fibers in different parts of the muscle.

I agree, no argument there.

EMG and MRI tests aren't entirely accurate. They show activation, yes, but they don't account for tension. Tension is what causes the growth.

Okay, but isn't activation what we are after here? I mean, he was asking what exercises will really hit his lower lats. So at least if those tests show more activation in that area, then that's a start, right? I understand that you are saying activation might not necessarily mean hypertrophy but if you are continually activating that area with enough force/demand on the muscles, then hypertrophy should be able to occur. Tear down the muscle, place more stress on it than it can handle, and it's forced to adapt. And if the nervous system is more activated in a certain area, then would it not suffice to say that that particular area is getting stressed more, therefore increasing chances of hypertrophy in that area?

Difference in feel with different exercises is natural, and its because its a different movement. The proprioceptors give different feedback for any different movement. A dumbell press feels different from a barbell press, but the same muscles are working.

Okay, perhaps. But how about changing grip width on different exercises? It feels different but it also hits different heads of the same muscle groups more. And what the heck are "proprioceptors"? Unfortunately, my vocabulary is somewhat limited.

Without getting into this again.... I'm with you Krytpo !! and you are much more able to back up the argument.

TJohn

Originally posted by TJohn
Without getting into this again.... I'm with you Krytpo !! and you are much more able to back up the argument.

TJohn

Thanks Sub-Zero and TJohn. I'm definitely having my need fulfilled. Need to learn and understand better that is!

This is good cause I am having my comprehension of the subject tested but in a civil manner, unlike what happened on another forum. I love discussions like this as long as I can discuss it with someone with an open mind. Too often people are just stuck on "proving" someone else wrong. I would just like to discuss in order to improve my own knowledge and comprehension while at the same time helping others who are reading the discussion. The other forum members had just ganged up on me in an effort to prove me wrong yet could not offer evidence for their own point of view. That's what I don't like. This is good though, I'm enjoying this.

Originally posted by Snake_Eyes
Read above.

Origin, I am curious where this came from.

Originally posted by KryptoAllez


And there have been studies using EMG and magnetic resonance tests utilizing different exercises, SHOWING more activity in certain areas. And personally I don't even need a study to show me that, I can FEEL differences between changing exercises, varying grips and angles. I don't need a study to show me that.

I agree. I am waiting to hear that there is no such thing as a compound movement next.

Hmmm...


Even if you could activate fibres in the "lower" lats, you're not gonna be able to isolate them from the fibres in the "upper" lats, hence growth will occur all over and the original question of how "to build up the lower portion of my lats" is futile.

Think about it people, if you could target various regions of muscles and actually cause significant growth in those areas, your muscles would be all bumpy and uneven. Not to mention you could almost "re-design" the "basic shape" of the human anatomy, which i have yet to see. Once i do, i'll re-consider my standing on intramuscular targetting. Until then...

If MRI proved it, why are we thinking about it at all?