And also, I didn't want you to think you need to have the shoulder held back all the time. You bring the shoulders forward at the beginning of the movement so there is some protraction of the scapula. My point is only that it need to be controlled. You never just allow the bar to pull on your shoulders in a completely relaxed state. I think you know what I mean be that.
Then you simply retract the scapula bringing the bar in. Exactly where your bring it is up to you but it's better to keep it at least at the sternum or lower. That way it's more a neutral postion as far as the back muscles are concerned. But of course you can vary this for different emphasis.
Continued...
Hmmmm....
Is some of your ideas about rows coming from Kethnaab? It sounds like him. I remember now we had a lot of discussions with him here about rows and he's got some weird "ideas" about rows.
There is no real rule that a "regular bent over row" is at 45 degrees. That's really high. 45 degrees is not the definition of it. It's just that ange if you choose to do so. Most people do it lower as long as they can maintain their arch.
Yates rows are done much higher and if you consider them somewhere between standing up and bending over they are really high. Maybe higher than 45 degress really now that I think of it...there hardly any range of motion since they are pulled into the stomach while at a very high angle.
I read over Kethnaab's description of rows in the Rippetoe thing and all the going on about how much better the deload is is completely pointless. As I said before the purpose of rows is not to lift as much on rows as possible. there are no rows contests. And doing them with being as explosive as possible in mind is, when your think about it, equally pointless. If you want to be explosive do olympic variations.
But in that description he repeats the importance of maintaining the lumbar arch about a zillion times.
If deloading on the floor is so important a person could still do it without all the thoracis flexion (rounding of the upper back). Now some people will be able to do the "JS" rows with very little of this anyway but I'll bet 90 percent of the people doing them are rounding the entire back.
More Row Stuff..
I've got a couple of things I pulled up I want you to look at as just a way of seeing different back angles but all with both with.
Yes, I know you know how to do it
but I'm trying to dispell some of these "rules" about angles from your mind. Especially parallel vs. other angles. Basically you can do it at whatever angles you are comfortable with or use different angles from around 45 degrees all the way down to parallel. Most people have a bread and butter way they like to do it of course.http://www.criticalbench.com/exercises/bent-over-barbell-rows.htm
https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/criticalbench14.htm
Next I want you to look at these two articles and vids. The parallel row vs. the pendlay row.
One the pendlay row one tell me if it makes any sense what the article says and what the guy does in the video. I'm not going to tell you what I think
But mostly I want you to notice that they are BOTH deweighted on the floor. But in the first "regular parellel bent over row" the guy never rounds his upper back. He simply lets his shoulders come down. I suspect this is the deweighted row that Rip is talking about being a regular barbell row and the so called Pendlay, JS or whatever is a bastardized version of it with thoracic roundking added. I'm not sure if that's true but in any case a person could do a deweigted row without all the rounding bullshit. If they couldn't do it parallel or on the floor at all, like I said they could deload to something higher. Even some plates.
Btw, I realize I made a big deal about it not being an EXPLOSIVE lift. But that is not to say it is not done fast. In order to use the muscles of the back via scapula retraction you have to do it fast. Otherwise the arms end up doing a lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment