Rep RoomForm Before Failure
Form Before Failure

How To Do the Lat Pulldown

The grip debate is the loudest argument in the back-training world. Someone actually tested it. The result is not what the wide-grip crowd wants to hear.

Start here

The lat pulldown is a pull-up you can load precisely. You sit down, brace your legs, and pull a bar to your chest.

That controllability is the point. You can train the pulling pattern at a weight you can actually handle, and you can add load in small steps.

Short version of the technique: sit tall, pull your shoulder blades down before your arms do anything, bring the bar to your upper chest, and control it back up. Now the grip argument.

The grip study nobody quotes properly

Forty men with at least five years of resistance training performed seven lat pulldown variations, differing in grip type, grip width and trunk inclination, at 70 percent of their max. EMG on the latissimus dorsi, posterior deltoid, biceps, middle and lower trapezius, and infraspinatus. Maximum voluntary contraction tests were done first so the numbers could be normalised properly.

The multivariate analysis found no significant difference across compared conditions.

That is a well-designed study, a decent sample by EMG standards, experienced lifters, proper normalisation, and it did not find the differences everyone argues about.

So when someone tells you a wide grip builds width and a close grip builds thickness, they are ahead of this evidence. Pick the grip your shoulders and elbows like.

The honest limits: one study, single load, trained men only, and EMG measures excitation during a session, not muscle growth over months. Absence of a detected difference is not proof that no difference exists.

Where your shoulder blades sit does seem to matter

A related study is more interesting than the grip question.

Fourteen trained men did a seated row two ways: shoulder blades locked in a fixed position, and shoulder blades free to move. High-density EMG grids covered the upper, middle and lower trapezius, latissimus, both deltoids, biceps, triceps and spinal erectors, reading the pulling and lowering phases separately.

Differences did show up, including greater posterior deltoid amplitude in the concentric phase for one of the variations.

So grip width, tested directly, showed no significant difference, while what your shoulder blades do, tested directly, did. That ordering is worth internalising. Stop fiddling with hand position and start paying attention to whether your scapulae actually move.

That study is a seated row, a horizontal pull, not a pulldown. I am borrowing the principle.

The pulldown and the pull-up are related but not the same

Fifty male collegiate athletes were tested on countermovement pull-ups and pure concentric pull-ups using a linear position transducer, alongside isometric lat pulldown strength measured with a hand-held dynamometer. Body weight was controlled for statistically.

The study exists precisely because the relationship between pulldown strength and pull-up performance was unclear, and it went looking for which mechanical variables connect them.

The practical takeaway is the framing rather than a number: pulldown strength and pull-up ability are related but distinct. Getting strong on the machine does not automatically hand you pull-ups.

There is also a structural difference. In a pull-up your hands are fixed and your body moves, which is closed kinetic chain. In a pulldown your body is fixed and the bar moves, which is open chain. A review of shoulder function argues the shoulder evolved for the closed chain kind of loading, and that the modern emphasis on open chain work may be part of why shoulder problems are so common.

That review is an evolutionary argument, not a trial. But it is a reason to keep working toward actual pull-ups rather than living on the machine forever.

How to actually do it

Set the thigh pad so you are not lifting off the seat. If you are being pulled out of the chair, the weight is choosing your technique.

Grip somewhere comfortable, roughly shoulder width to slightly wider. The tested variations did not separate, so stop agonising.

Before your elbows bend, pull your shoulder blades down. That is the part that actually differed in the measured research.

Pull the bar to your upper chest. Not behind your neck, which puts your shoulder in external rotation and extension with load and buys you nothing the tested variations offer.

Control the bar back up and let your shoulder blades travel up with it. That top stretch is half the rep.

Sit tall with a slight lean back, and keep that lean the same for every rep. If you start rowing your whole torso to move the weight, the set is over.

And treat the pulldown as a stepping stone. The goal is a pull-up.

The takeaway

Grip width is the most argued-about and least supported variable here: seven variations across 40 experienced lifters produced no significant difference. What did differ in direct testing was shoulder blade position, so pull your scapulae down before your arms bend and let them travel back up on the way out. Bar to the upper chest, never behind the neck. Keep your torso angle consistent and end the set when you start heaving. Pulldown strength and pull-up ability are related but not the same thing, so use the machine as a bridge toward real pull-ups rather than a permanent home.

Limits of this evidence

  • The grip study found no significant difference, which is not the same as proving no difference exists. A single study at one load in trained men can miss real but small effects.
  • EMG measures muscle excitation during a session. It does not measure hypertrophy or strength gained over weeks, so no grip recommendation here is backed by growth data.
  • The scapular position finding comes from a seated row, a horizontal pull, and is applied to the vertical pulldown by inference.
  • The pull-up study was in 50 male collegiate athletes, so it says little about beginners, women, or people who cannot yet perform a pull-up.
  • The closed versus open kinetic chain argument is a narrative evolutionary review rather than a controlled trial.
  • The advice against pulling behind the neck follows from joint position reasoning, not from an injury study included here.
  • Sample sizes are modest throughout (40, 14 and 50 participants) and all-male.
  • Each claim rests on a single source with no independent replication checked. Treat the piece as provisional.
This piece rates evidence on a conservative ladder that tops out at Moderate. We never publish certainty we do not have. See how we rate