Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Bent-Over-Rows or Cable Row ...
- Thread starter AndsX
- Start date
Cynical Simian
New member
Oh, well since you're going for mass, do barbell rows. But cable rows would be the way to go for...well, pretty much nothing.AndsX said:
Also, do Pendlay rows rather than the glorified shrug that gets passed off as rows in most gyms.
Nathan
New member
Don't do deads with legs. Do squats on leg day, and deads on back day, and keep them a good 3-4 days apart for maximum recovery, specifically of your lower back. The best bck workout you can do, in my opinion, is a couple sets of heavy deads, a couple sets of light deads, 4 or 5 sets of wide-grip chins, and then an exercise or two of something else. I occasionally move the deads to later in my workout or do SLDLs for a while and focus on starting my workouts with wide-grip chins.
ghettostudmuffin
New member
I know barbell rows are great and all, but I don't quite get the anti-cable row flying around.
Nothing hits my back better than cable rows besides deads.
Deadlifts build my whole back and primarily erectors and traps, but bent-over barbell rows have never done it for me really. I've read all the articles and tried all the techniques and watched myself in the mirror and had others comment and it just doesn't feel right for me.
Granted, I incorporate the pendlay technique on how I perform cable rows, but also I have known rowers that have commented on how great it can be for back development and the cable row is about as close as you can come to that specific movement.
I would generally always agree and say go for the barbell row and learn how to do it well, but over time experience can tell you which exercises you get the most out of.
It's like barbell benching and dumbell benching. Both performed literally identical it's night and day in how much my chest is actually worked with the dumbells easily edging out the barbell.
I know that all sounds foo foo bodybuilderish ,but it works for me.
Nothing hits my back better than cable rows besides deads.
Deadlifts build my whole back and primarily erectors and traps, but bent-over barbell rows have never done it for me really. I've read all the articles and tried all the techniques and watched myself in the mirror and had others comment and it just doesn't feel right for me.
Granted, I incorporate the pendlay technique on how I perform cable rows, but also I have known rowers that have commented on how great it can be for back development and the cable row is about as close as you can come to that specific movement.
I would generally always agree and say go for the barbell row and learn how to do it well, but over time experience can tell you which exercises you get the most out of.
It's like barbell benching and dumbell benching. Both performed literally identical it's night and day in how much my chest is actually worked with the dumbells easily edging out the barbell.
I know that all sounds foo foo bodybuilderish ,but it works for me.
harbinator
New member
GhettoStudMuffin said:
I agree with you here, I get MUCH more of a workout from dumbells than I do barbell. Its weird I can bench the same exact weight with dumbells as I can with a barbell.
ghettostudmuffin
New member
al420, no offense, but if you can physiologically prove that statement with statistical data, I'd love to see it.
You can claim it's head over heels better, but that means very little as everyone's body responds differently. I KNOW how to perform a row properly and can stimulate growth with barbell rows, but for me, cable rows blow them away. I don't care how perfectly I perform barbell rows without regard to weight used or how heavy I go, it doesn't even compare to how thoroughly I can kill my back on a well performed cable row, FOR ME.
Go talk to some serious rowers that do short sprints. You might change your mind as most of those guys have pretty sick back development from that rowing motion. As a matter of fact I talked to my buddy today that knew a lot of competitive rowers and he wholeheartedly agreed with me.
As for performing it like a pendlay row. It's the technical execution and I could care less if he thought I was an assclown for saying that. When I perform a cable row I go to full stretch on the eccentric with the upper back rounding, deweight the weight, then accelerate the weight back by initiating the pull with the lats first and as I hit about midway back I bring the arms into it and arch my back really hard trying not to go back past vertical.
One thing I've learned is that not everything is gospel. Sometimes you gotta do what feels right for you.
Just my opinion.
You can claim it's head over heels better, but that means very little as everyone's body responds differently. I KNOW how to perform a row properly and can stimulate growth with barbell rows, but for me, cable rows blow them away. I don't care how perfectly I perform barbell rows without regard to weight used or how heavy I go, it doesn't even compare to how thoroughly I can kill my back on a well performed cable row, FOR ME.
Go talk to some serious rowers that do short sprints. You might change your mind as most of those guys have pretty sick back development from that rowing motion. As a matter of fact I talked to my buddy today that knew a lot of competitive rowers and he wholeheartedly agreed with me.
As for performing it like a pendlay row. It's the technical execution and I could care less if he thought I was an assclown for saying that. When I perform a cable row I go to full stretch on the eccentric with the upper back rounding, deweight the weight, then accelerate the weight back by initiating the pull with the lats first and as I hit about midway back I bring the arms into it and arch my back really hard trying not to go back past vertical.
One thing I've learned is that not everything is gospel. Sometimes you gotta do what feels right for you.
Just my opinion.
Guinness5.0
New member
It's hard to argue with results.
For me, I noticed visible improvement very shortly after learning how to barbell row 'properly' (torso close to parallel with the floor). Also, I think there's something to be said for strengthening the opposing muscles that get hit hard on the bench press (db or otherwise) in the same plane of motion [EDIT: I mean a freeweight exercise here -- one that forces the body to balance the weight]; I think it's wise to do so for the sake of injury prevention and I think it works to improve bench strength.
To some degree I think it falls under the header of 'your results may vary', but as a blanket recommendation I would advise bb rows every time.
For me, I noticed visible improvement very shortly after learning how to barbell row 'properly' (torso close to parallel with the floor). Also, I think there's something to be said for strengthening the opposing muscles that get hit hard on the bench press (db or otherwise) in the same plane of motion [EDIT: I mean a freeweight exercise here -- one that forces the body to balance the weight]; I think it's wise to do so for the sake of injury prevention and I think it works to improve bench strength.
To some degree I think it falls under the header of 'your results may vary', but as a blanket recommendation I would advise bb rows every time.
Last edited:
JohnRobHolmes
Well-known member
I have tried DB rows, and my lower back didnt like the twist involved. BB rows worked much better, but again my lower back affected how hard I could work my lats and traps. I get a far better workout on my upper back with cable rows or a row machine with free handles than I can with freeweights. It is the only movement that I prefer a machine to free weights as a matter of fact.
In time my opinion might change. I try to keep as little of my mind set in stone as possible. Keeps new ideas from bouncing out too fast. I would liken my brain to more of a porridge like substance, with bits of raisin and bran thrown in for kicks.
In time my opinion might change. I try to keep as little of my mind set in stone as possible. Keeps new ideas from bouncing out too fast. I would liken my brain to more of a porridge like substance, with bits of raisin and bran thrown in for kicks.
ghettostudmuffin
New member
Just to throw one more thing in.
Like john, cable row is about the only machine exercise I prefer over a given free weight exercise.
If someone asked "me" for advice on lifting I would show them how to properly perform barbell rows in do as I say not as I do approach knowing full well that for most the BB row is gonna be the superior option.
Part of the reason I love the cable row is probably I like the rowing motion in general and that's the closest exercise in gym to it so it's even easier to get a groove with the exercise and really feel it hitting my back.
My middle back gets destroyed from them.
Like john, cable row is about the only machine exercise I prefer over a given free weight exercise.
If someone asked "me" for advice on lifting I would show them how to properly perform barbell rows in do as I say not as I do approach knowing full well that for most the BB row is gonna be the superior option.
Part of the reason I love the cable row is probably I like the rowing motion in general and that's the closest exercise in gym to it so it's even easier to get a groove with the exercise and really feel it hitting my back.
My middle back gets destroyed from them.
Cynical Simian
New member
Not that I give a damn about this sort of thing since I don't consider Pendlay rows a lats isolation exercise, but there are some EMG data floating around that have barbell rows done at 90 degrees at the top of the list. I don't remember whether cable rows were on also one of the exercises tested.GhettoStudMuffin said:
Protobuilder
New member
I just don't see how you can apply serious loads w/ a cable machine. I mean, we're talking about guys who can row around 300 pounds w/ a barbell. How do you even get close to that kind of loading w/ a pulley? To me, it's apples & oranges on a host of levels, not the least of which is the stabilization (or lack thereof) in the two movements. Free weight explosive rowing is more of a "whole body" movement, requiring significant static contraction of a host of muscles, and obviously the dynamic contraction of many as well. It's hard for me to envision getting that kind of recruitment w/ a pulley no matter how explosive you yank it.
Now, I'm NOT knocking GSM or his results AT ALL. I think it's two diff't approaches: free weight "pendlay" rows are more of an "athletic" training approach, using a lot of stabilizers, etc. Whereas a pulley row, even if pulled explosively, just doesn't have the kind of stabilization involved w/ glutes, etc. but I'm sure you can easily get into higher reps, more metabolic fatigue etc. in a targeted muscle w/ the pulleys.
Now, I'm NOT knocking GSM or his results AT ALL. I think it's two diff't approaches: free weight "pendlay" rows are more of an "athletic" training approach, using a lot of stabilizers, etc. Whereas a pulley row, even if pulled explosively, just doesn't have the kind of stabilization involved w/ glutes, etc. but I'm sure you can easily get into higher reps, more metabolic fatigue etc. in a targeted muscle w/ the pulleys.
ghettostudmuffin
New member
You bring up some good points Protobuilder.
Yes, the cable row in no way employs as many muscles as the barbell row and that right there scientifically would prove it as probably being a less effective or efficient exercise. Also it's application to any sport other than actual rowing or truck pulling is pretty low. Your point on the static contraction involved in the BB row also validates this.
I like cabel row's because I can (yes, I'll say it) more effectively isolate my mid-back and lat muscles with it. Any stabilizer or glute action I need is easily covered in full squats and deadlifts imho. Not to even mention my VERY physical out door job. That may be my problem with BB rows is that my glutes and lowback want to cooperate in the lift too much which may explain why I have always been able to pull significantly more in one-arm supported DB rows compared to BB rows and why I have an issue getting the most out of the exercise as far as full contraction and getting a noticeable pump/burn in the back muscles with it. It's certainly not low back or glute weakness.
Yes, the cable row in no way employs as many muscles as the barbell row and that right there scientifically would prove it as probably being a less effective or efficient exercise. Also it's application to any sport other than actual rowing or truck pulling is pretty low. Your point on the static contraction involved in the BB row also validates this.
I like cabel row's because I can (yes, I'll say it) more effectively isolate my mid-back and lat muscles with it. Any stabilizer or glute action I need is easily covered in full squats and deadlifts imho. Not to even mention my VERY physical out door job. That may be my problem with BB rows is that my glutes and lowback want to cooperate in the lift too much which may explain why I have always been able to pull significantly more in one-arm supported DB rows compared to BB rows and why I have an issue getting the most out of the exercise as far as full contraction and getting a noticeable pump/burn in the back muscles with it. It's certainly not low back or glute weakness.
Protobuilder
New member
I may catch some flames here or be labeled a traitor, but I'm coming around more to understanding the value of isolation exercises. I don't think many people looking for training advice online need them, and frankly should stay away from them for a few years at least. But I could see why if you're into bodybuilding, you'd want to be able to really throw a ton of volume at a bodypart like lats. And just using a big compound exercise like rows might make that difficult b/c you have so much other stuff involved (e.g., your lower back, hams and glutes get fried while you're trying to hammer your lats & midback). You could possibly run through a bunch of sets of setaed cable rows on Monday, WEdnedsay, and AGAIN on Friday, and not really affect your lower back much. For some (bodybuilders), that's a good thing I s'pose, so long as they don't lose sight of the bigger picture: moving heavier weights and getting stronger continously.
Overall, even for bodybuilder types, I suspect several heavy sets of freeweight rows followed by some volume w/ cables, etc. is the best approach.
Overall, even for bodybuilder types, I suspect several heavy sets of freeweight rows followed by some volume w/ cables, etc. is the best approach.
ghettostudmuffin
New member
Ya. That's another thing worth mentioning.
My routine is centered around heavy lifting in the basic exercises for the most part.
But. I've been lifting on and off again long enough to also know that I can get additional muscle size gain when I add in some lighter isolation work with the heavy compound movements.
I believe John McCallum in his series the Keys To Progress liked to refer to this as filling out the muscles a little more.
In my workouts I only add in a few sets of isolation work ,but I use high reps with them and take them to failure and get a killer pump and burn.
A lot of people will say this is not necessary, but when I can notice the immediate increase in size of my arms by as much as a half inch sustained after only a few sessions from some extra arm isolation, I know that you can get more out of what you got than from just pure compound work.
Focus on the heavy compound exercises builds size, strength, and power over the whole body. But, I do believe isolation exercises can help fill out the muscles that are not necessarily the prime mover in the compound exercises.
Another example is I can row to my hearts content and my back will grow a lot and my arms, specifically biceps will grow as well, but they will grow even more with a little direct exercise.
It's kinda funny, it seems like the real old school lifters did a moderate amount of volume and focused on working hard and heavy on the basics, but also did isolation work to supplement and improve areas not worked hard enough from just compound lifts. Then the drugs came and lifters went way overboard on volume and also tended to neglect compound exercises or at least not make them the priority since growth was fueled from the drugs, to HIT zealots like Mike Mentzer(who I admired at one point in time in my youth only to come to the conclusion through time and experience that him and Arthur jones ideas on training were wack, but at least brought to light the idea of overtraining), to now where people aren't so crazy about no volume HIT style training, but still tend to shun traditional bodybuilding type isolation exercises that have plenty of value for increasing a specific muscles size when used as a supplement to the core basics.
Just my opinion.
My routine is centered around heavy lifting in the basic exercises for the most part.
But. I've been lifting on and off again long enough to also know that I can get additional muscle size gain when I add in some lighter isolation work with the heavy compound movements.
I believe John McCallum in his series the Keys To Progress liked to refer to this as filling out the muscles a little more.
In my workouts I only add in a few sets of isolation work ,but I use high reps with them and take them to failure and get a killer pump and burn.
A lot of people will say this is not necessary, but when I can notice the immediate increase in size of my arms by as much as a half inch sustained after only a few sessions from some extra arm isolation, I know that you can get more out of what you got than from just pure compound work.
Focus on the heavy compound exercises builds size, strength, and power over the whole body. But, I do believe isolation exercises can help fill out the muscles that are not necessarily the prime mover in the compound exercises.
Another example is I can row to my hearts content and my back will grow a lot and my arms, specifically biceps will grow as well, but they will grow even more with a little direct exercise.
It's kinda funny, it seems like the real old school lifters did a moderate amount of volume and focused on working hard and heavy on the basics, but also did isolation work to supplement and improve areas not worked hard enough from just compound lifts. Then the drugs came and lifters went way overboard on volume and also tended to neglect compound exercises or at least not make them the priority since growth was fueled from the drugs, to HIT zealots like Mike Mentzer(who I admired at one point in time in my youth only to come to the conclusion through time and experience that him and Arthur jones ideas on training were wack, but at least brought to light the idea of overtraining), to now where people aren't so crazy about no volume HIT style training, but still tend to shun traditional bodybuilding type isolation exercises that have plenty of value for increasing a specific muscles size when used as a supplement to the core basics.
Just my opinion.
Nathan
New member
I think of it like this: heavy compound stuff for strength and size, and isolation, higher rep stuff to get blood into the muscle for healing purposes. You don't always get as good a blood flow to specific bodyparts with compound movements, but you can certainly tear more muscle fibers.
Pullups, deads, one arm row or t-bar rows and your good to go.
s8nlilhlpr
Banned
I'd say it has more of an issue with time for myself. Some nights I get to the gym late and only have enough time to do the basics before I have to eat/sleep. Work long hours, so I found it was more productive to focus on 3-4 compound moves and worry about the iso when I have more time. Sure its nice to have 2 hours in the gym, but if I can only get 45 mins, I'll take it.
