is this high lats or not?

I only offer a novice opinion as I am just learning about insertions, funny I have been studying lats mostly and some biceps.

My worthless opinion;

Really contradictory pics, based on the first pic I would have said higher than average (not good) but still thick (good). Then in the second pic I would say good low insertions are clearly evident - good.

So I'm stumped, main thing is you appear quiet thick ie good mass development thru the back but your hips are quiet wide which negates the illusion a bit.

Will do some more study and try give a better answer. Maybe less bf% would bring out the better lines.

My opinion is worthless so do not be offended.
 
I only offer a novice opinion as I am just learning about insertions, funny I have been studying lats mostly and some biceps.

My worthless opinion;

Really contradictory pics, based on the first pic I would have said higher than average (not good) but still thick (good). Then in the second pic I would say good low insertions are clearly evident - good.

So I'm stumped, main thing is you appear quiet thick ie good mass development thru the back but your hips are quiet wide which negates the illusion a bit.

Will do some more study and try give a better answer. Maybe less bf% would bring out the better lines.

My opinion is worthless so do not be offended.
i am at a higher bodyfat percentage right now but yeah im stumped too i agree the pics contradict. maybe im hitting one of the poses wrong lol
 
Yah, might be influenced by pose. For reference I will post an example of extremes high & low;

Extreme high;

images
 

@Dr JIM Really the difference is just mass not the point of insertion?
Just trying to understand, both guys are massive. It appears the first guy the muscle belly is too short to ever cover the lower part of his back and will only get bigger peak wise but not longer no matter how much mass he adds???

Muscle can not grow beyond the insertion point regardless of how massive the muscle develops.

Again just trying to learn.
 
Yah, might be influenced by pose. For reference I will post an example of extremes high & low;

Extreme high;

images
Screenshot_2017-12-31-20-25-44.png
You cant really compare muscle anatomy in 2 different poses either . If you look at them in the same pose @Dr JIM is right , Its not really a matter of anatomy just kia greene has ALOT more lat development overall .

Also @SickeningSkittles if you want to get a better back double bicep total lat development is important , but building your teres major , teres minor , and rear delts is what will really give the illusion of width .
 


This has helped me out. I feel I struggle with back also, mind to muscle connection with lats, and getting dialed in on more stress on actual back muscles while training and being able to create a solid pump like I would get training chest, legs, muscle groups I have that good mind to muscles connection established with.
 
Back
Top