Understanding how to train for back width versus back thickness is crucial for effective back development. Many gym-goers believe wide-grip pulldowns build width, but often lack a solid rationale. Similarly, vertical pulls like pull-ups are associated with width, while horizontal pulls like rows are linked to thickness. This article explores the truth behind these assumptions and the impact of grip width and hand position on back development.
Back width is primarily determined by two factors: lat development and waist circumference. A smaller waist enhances the V-taper, making the back appear wider. Diet plays a key role in waist management, so training should focus on optimizing lat growth. Vertical pulls like pull-ups and pulldowns are essential for lat development, but the optimal grip remains a topic of debate.
Several studies have investigated EMG activation during pulldowns. A 2002 study by Signorile et al. found wide-grip pulldowns (to the front and behind the neck) elicited greater lat activation compared to close-grip variations. However, variations in wrist position between grips confounded the results.
A 2010 study by Lusk et al. addressed this by controlling wrist position. They compared wide and narrow, pronated and supinated grips. Interestingly, pronated grips (overhand) outperformed supinated grips, regardless of width. This suggests overhand grips are superior for lat activation. However, the study’s use of absolute loading (same weight for all grips) may have favored overhand grips simply because they are more challenging.
A 2014 study by Andersen et al. resolved this by using relative loading (percentage of one-rep max). They compared narrow, medium, and wide overhand grips. The medium grip proved optimal, demonstrating higher six-rep max strength and greater concentric biceps activation, with a trend towards higher lat activation.
Based on this data, a medium overhand grip (approximately 1.5 times shoulder-width), pulled to the front, appears slightly advantageous for maximizing back width. However, EMG data represents averages, not individual responses. Biomechanics offers further insight.
Close-grip pulldowns emphasize shoulder extension, while wide-grip pulldowns emphasize shoulder adduction. The lats contribute to both movements, but rowing exercises typically target the lats through shoulder extension. Therefore, prioritizing shoulder adduction (wider pronated grip) during pulldowns may be more beneficial from a programming perspective.
It’s a misconception that wide grips exclusively train width and narrow grips solely train thickness. Andersen et al.’s research showed high lat and trap activation in all grip variations. Any vertical pull executed through a full range of motion with proper technique contributes to both width and thickness. Grip variations within one to two times shoulder width can be effective.
Horizontal pulls like rows are highly effective for developing both width and thickness. A study by Lehman et al. showed seated rows outperformed lat pulldowns for both lat and trap activation.
While EMG data on grip width for rows is limited, biomechanics suggests a counterintuitive approach: closer grips for width and wider grips for thickness. A close grip on a cable row, for example, facilitates greater shoulder extension, emphasizing the lats. Conversely, a wider grip promotes transverse shoulder abduction and scapular retraction, emphasizing the mid-traps and rear delts.
For barbell rows, a medium grip (slightly wider than shoulder-width), with elbows pulled back and out at a 45-degree angle, offers a balanced approach, targeting both lats and traps effectively.
Ultimately, finding a comfortable grip that allows for full range of motion and a strong mind-muscle connection is paramount. These subtle grip adjustments can then be used to address specific weak points.
