RRC Archives

If you want to increase your pullups give it a look. U.S.M.C has been suggesting it to applicants for years to help them reach their pft goals, and it gets results in 3-6 weeks. Not saying pullups are necessary or even important to climbing, but some people have an unscientifically based belief that it helps you to achieve pretty triceps. Regardless Armstrong is a method someone looking at achieving gains in their pullups might want to check out.

Tri's? I must be doing them wrong.

i thought the same thing Lee...

Back, bi's, tri's and shoulders. Granted tri's don't take the majority of the load but they stabilize. Depending on form, grip and muscular development they might take more of a pounding in some than others. Not unheard of for people to tear tri's as the result of pullups either. Course you could always rip off some reverse pullups too but I'm not a fan of being upside down. But yeah most gains from them would logically stem from the push up portion of Armstrongs routine.

BClear wrote:Back, bi's, tri's and shoulders. Granted tri's don't take the majority of the load but they stabilize. Depending on form, grip and muscular development they might take more of a pounding in some than others. Not unheard of for people to tear tri's as the result of pullups either. Course you could always rip off some reverse pullups too but I'm not a fan of being upside down. But yeah most gains from them would logically stem from the push up portion of Armstrongs routine.

I am callling BS. Don't have time to look up EMG data right now, but will later.

tissue tris

BS??? Pullup = Latissimus Dorsi + trapezius = prime movers. Bi's, tri's, delts, core = dynamic stabs. Can tweak any of them potentially but all see various gains from pullups. Sudden relaxation of the latissimus dorsi transfers weight directly to the long head of the tricep. If the tri's aren't properly warmed up and fatigued its primetime for a partial tear in the tri. If your adding weight to your pullup it just increases the potential. Full tears are rare but they have happened. Granted proper form and theres no problem.

Surprisingly there is an absence on data on this. Prime movers are the latissmus dorsi and brachioradialus. Secondary movers would be lower traps and biceps brachii. The pec muscles kick in more as you get higher into the pull up. Glenhumeral stability would primarily be the rotator cuff.

Triceps surae primary action is elbow extension. It is also a weak glenohumeral extensor and secondary stabilizer as the long head crosses the shoulder joint. So, while it could contribute to shoulder extension during a pull up, it must also be considered that the elbow must be concurrently flexed. It is probably active a relative low level as sort of an isometric contraction. However, I would guess that the % maximum voluntary isometric contraction (%MVIC) would be pretty low.

If you have any evidence based literature that is not anecdotal and says otherwise, I would be all ears. Until then, I stick with my OP and call BS to your OP in that you said that pull ups can give you "pretty tri's".

The only study I could find didn't even look at the contribution of the triceps because it was probably an insignificant contributor...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21068680

I think that would neglect the going back down part of a pull-up. It's not like you can just release the lats and brachioradialis all at once and drop a static shock-load onto your elbows and glenohumeral joints. It seems like you have to actually engage your extensors to some extent to control the descent and avoid injury, no? When I do pullups I can feel the triceps brachii working anyway... maybe that's why they're so hard for me

as if pullups weren't boring enough.....

thanks, guys.