I have an exercise physiology question that’s been bothering me, and I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Jordan often mentions that he likes barbell rows for general back hypertrophy. Further, he seems to advocate that they be performed in a somewhat cheaty, “belly clean” style. (I believe he said something to the effect of, “as long they touch the body, they’re fine with me” on one of the VLOGs.)
It seems generally accepted that “explosive” movements aren’t good for hypertrophy, for instance plyometrics and the olympic lifts. I guess the reason is that actin-myostatin cross-bridges have a lower detachment rate at slow speeds, though I’m ignorant of the underlying biology and am happy to be corrected on this point. (I realize there are other confounding factors here, such as the fact that olympic lifts are often done for very low reps, but the speed consideration seems important nonetheless.)
I noticed that Pendlay rows also seem like an explosive pull, in that all the reps are done fairly quickly and the sets end when the bar can no longer be brought to the body, which seems well before bar speed slows down appreciably (at least to the degree of a @8-9 bench or deadlift, for example). Maybe another way to put this is that the failure point on Pendlay rows seems to come well before all motor units are fully fatigued.
So, how do we explain this apparent discrepancy? Why are Pendlay rows good for “general back jackitude” but not cleans? And would we expect a similar row variant that permits slow, quasi-grindy reps – such as a cable row – to be superior to the Pendlay row for hypertrophy purposes?
Sure. I think there’s a better carry over strength wise like that. Theoretically, doing them more strict might contribute to more hypertrophy, but I doubt it (see below).
This has been theorized based on lack of eccentric, but the data says otherwise much of the time with plyo’s and OL producing similar improvements in hypertrophy when volumes and work loads are similar.
Hypertrophic response from resistance training is secondary to mechanical loading that requires motor unit recruitment at a sufficient level to pass a sort of threshold. Once past this threshold, the hypertrophic response is generated. More training past this isn’t really helpful from a hypertrophy standpoint. Speed has nothing to do with it (outside of motor unit recruitment)
Thanks for pointing that out – I definitely thought otherwise and gladly stand corrected!
Hypertrophic response from resistance training is secondary to mechanical loading that requires motor unit recruitment at a sufficient level to pass a sort of threshold. Once past this threshold, the hypertrophic response is generated. More training past this isn’t really helpful from a hypertrophy standpoint. Speed has nothing to do with it (outside of motor unit recruitment)
I have a quick followup on this. Fixing a rep scheme and RPE, do we expect “cheaty” rows to produce a better back hypertrophy response than strict ones, because of the greater loading used? I realize the greater loading is only possible due to the use of non-back musculature, but it still seems like you’re able to better recruit/fatigue the back this way, since on a strict row the top of the range of motion is quite limiting. I don’t really know, which is why I ask!
I don’t expect one to be significantly better or worse than another provided net fatigue is about the same (probably would need different reps, but similar RPE). Additionally, The range of motion is the same, but there are more muscles involved in getting the cheaty rows to move, right?