Long Pull, Full Kinetic Chain POWER BB ROWS

[John A. Casler]

Never did BB Rows in my younger days and only began using them seriously about 10 years ago.

Contrasting the goals of many, I train the "movement" and not the muscle. That is, my goal is not to in some way focus on the lats, which is only one of many muscles involved, but to train every muscle from feet to hands in the Kinetic Chain when this exercise is maximized by employing a Dynamic Power Type of action.

And YES, it does offer the LATS all they need and far more than if I employed a more specialized and restricted form and positioning.

Here is a "series" of THREE sets of BB Rows alternated with some Bodyweight and Weighted Dips.

Not shown are the "warm-up" sets with lighter loads.

Notice the "long pull" and stretch. To achieve this I stand on a 6" high platform to make sure I don't have to interrupt the bottom of the action by hitting the floor.

Please excuse my "grunting" as these loads are relatively heavy for me.

[carruthersjam]

Supportive literature

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research:Volume 23(2)March 2009pp 350-358
Comparison of Different Rowing Exercises: Trunk Muscle Activation and Lumbar Spine Motion, Load, and Stiffness
[Original Research]
Fenwick, Chad M J; Brown, Stephen H M; McGill, Stuart M


Discussion TOP
Inverted rows spare the back with more neutral spine angles and may be more appropriate for those who have less tolerance to spine motion and load. The compression and anterior/posterior shear forces measured during the inverted row were similar to those estimated during the leg and contralateral arm extensions (birddog), as reported by Callaghan et al. (4). The inverted row elicited higher activation of the thoracic erector spinae and the latissimus dorsi muscles compared with the birddog, and it also produced high activation of the RBF, RGMED, and RGMAX muscles. However, while performing the inverted row, there is much higher activation in the upper thoracic than the lower lumbar erector spinae. This asymmetry in thoracic and lumbar muscle activation may develop an overpowered upper back relative to the lower back (11). Although this may be beneficial in some people because the lower activation level of the lumbar erector spinae reduces the lumbar spine load, it may be contraindicated for others. For example, Reeves and Cholewicki (15) found imbalances in activation amplitude between the lumbar and thoracic extensor muscles as markers of those who have a history of low-back injury. This observation suggests that the inverted row may be more appropriate for some individuals, but not all, who require reduced low-back loads. Furthermore, the inverted row did not seem to challenge the anterior musculature, including the abdominals and RRF. Therefore, by having the body suspended with feet on the ground and knees bent at 90°, there is already a considerably large flexor reaction torque created by the mass of the torso, which requires an extensor restorative torque to keep the spine neutral. However, most participants seemed to overcompensate for this torque by hiking their lumbar spines well into the extension range of motion capacity. This observation suggests that by extending the lumbar spine, a better force-length relationship of the erector muscles may be achieved, or that people are able to rest on the passive tissues of the spine, as opposed to the higher energy cost of larger back extensor activation with abdominal bracing during a neutral spine posture. It may be a control strategy by which it is simply easier to drive the spine into an end-range position so that the muscles do not need to control. Adams et al. (1) observed that damage to the lumbar spine occurred in vitro at a small extension angle combined with low spine compression (as low as 500 N). Therefore, to spare the spine, it is critical for a trainer to ensure that proper technique is followed and that posture is impeccable.

The standing bent-over row resulted in the highest spine compression and the largest amount of spine flexion. The standing bent-over row challenged the flexion/extension muscle stiffness capabilities significantly more than the inverted row and 1-armed cable row. This result is attributable to the compromised spine position in combination with the barbell creating a large external moment on the lumbar spine. Muscle activation was similar to that of the inverted row but did not show asymmetrical activation of the thoracic and lumbar erector spinae. Therefore, the load in the hand created a large flexor torque that the thoracic and lumbar erector spinae muscles had to correct for, resulting in increased muscle stiffness that stabilized the lumbar spine.

The 1-armed cable pull clearly created a torsional challenge and, in turn, produced the largest challenge to the axial twist muscular stiffness. This torsional challenge is expensive in terms of spine load, given the relatively higher compressive force resulting from the cocontraction of both sides of the trunk musculature to resist the trunk from rotating. However, even though the participants were instructed to maintain neutral spines, the normalized measured twist displacement was significantly larger than in the inverted row or in the standing bent-over row. On average, each person peaked at 70% of his twist motion capacity. This finding strengthens the notion about being relentless on maintaining form, because this twisting was very small from an observational point of view yet very large in terms of the total in vivo capacity for twist.

One limitation of this study is that it did not evaluate participants with low-back pain or athletes who might have been better at activating muscles. However, it is suggested that the inverted row can offer a challenging extensor chain exercise with lumbar spine loading similar to what would occur in exercises prescribed for low-back pain patients in rehabilitation programs.

Practical Applications TOP
The objective of core exercises is to challenge the trunk musculature (abdominals and back) and enhance the stability of the torso and lumbar spine. However, some exercises may be better for rehabilitation (modest muscle activation with low spine load), and others might be better for athletic/performance training (higher muscle activation resulting in larger spine load) in which large spine load is inevitable. When prescribing torso exercises, features such as muscle activation level and spine posture must be matched to the training goals and injury history. The data in this study suggest that if a client or athlete is prone to having low-back trouble, the inverted row could be considered, given the very modest lumbar spine load. On the other hand, the thoracic and upper-back musculature is more substantially challenged. For those seeking more balance between activation of the thoracic and lumbar erector spinae muscles, other exercises could be used to train the lumbar erector muscles; while maintaining low spine loads, the birddog (4) exercise has been shown to be preferable. The standing bent-over row elicited large muscle activation of both the upper and lower back. Thus, for a client or athlete for whom back loading is not a concern, the standing bent-over row exercise may be preferred (being mindful of maintaining the neutral spine curve, which ensures the spine will maintain the highest tolerance level) (11). When designing a program to train isometric torsional endurance or strength of the trunk musculature, the 1-armed cable row may be considered. Note that the data presented here produced axial twisting torque without any actual torso twisting. The purpose of this exercise was to challenge the torso muscles in their ability to resist twisting the upper body, not to train the twisting motion of the torso.