The article has me a little confused, too. Thinking in terms of the push to pull ratio
is useful, if you add a little nuance. The point of it is to prevent postural and shoulder issues that can result from too much emphasis on muscles involved in internal rotation, especially the pecs. But not all "pulling" muscles are going to counteract the overemphasis on internal rotators, because some of those pulling muscles--specifically, the lats and teres major--are themselves internal rotators. So you are not going to counterbalance the negative effects of too much flat, incline, or decline pressing with ordinary pulldowns or chins, which emphasize the lats and teres major. You won't counteract too much pressing with rows either, if you do the rows in ways that emphasize the lats--that is with arms adducted (elbows close to the sides). But if you do your pulls with your arms abducted (away from your body), such as by doing barbell, cable, dumbbell (one or two arm) or t-bar rows with your elbows ending up out away from the body (which is easier with a pronated (overhand) grip) or even doing pulldowns while leaning back and pulling your elbows back and out away from your body, you won't eliminate the lats and teres major entirely, but you'll strongly bias the movement toward your rear delts, teres
minor, and rhomboids, which are external rotators and which can help counteract the effects of lots of pressing (and lots of lat work). For the sake of my shoulders, I make sure to include rear delt and rhomboid work in every workout in which I press and/or work my lats. I also try to do some lower and mid trap work, though I definitely don't enough of that. So I don't think the push to pull ratio "is wrong," but it needs more nuance. But the article's argument about reaching strikes me as a stretch.
| Why are you squatting in the curl rack? |
