The short answer
No lat pulldown grip has been shown to be best for your lats. In a 2025 study, the largest cited here, 40 experienced young men showed no significant difference in lat activity across wide, narrow, neutral and underhand versions, with hands about 1 to 1.5 times shoulder width apart. Older, smaller studies disagree in places, and none of these studies followed people over weeks to measure growth.
So choose a grip you can use comfortably through a full, controlled range of motion. Keep it long enough for your numbers to mean something, and log it as its own exercise.
Does grip change lat work? The studies disagree
The 2025 study tested seven versions in men with at least five years of training and found no significant difference in lat activity. Its authors suggest choosing by comfort, joint safety and technical control.
A 2014 study compared three overhand widths in 15 men: 1, 1.5 and 2 times the distance across the shoulders. Lat activity was similar over the whole movement, although the widest grip beat the narrowest during the eccentric phase, as the bar rises back up. In both studies, narrow meant about shoulder width, and neither tested hands closer together. The widest grip was about 1.5 times shoulder width in the 2025 study, the 2014 study's medium, and about 2 times in the 2014 study.
A 2002 study of 10 men points elsewhere, with more lat activity with a wide overhand grip in front of the body than with close, underhand or behind-the-neck versions. A 2026 narrative review, from a group overlapping with the 2025 study's authors, calls the width findings inconsistent.
What the evidence cannot tell you
Surface electromyography (EMG) records electrical activity during a set, not growth. A 2022 paper argues that acute EMG amplitude is not a validated predictor of hypertrophy. When the 2014 study's abstract says similar activation should mean similar growth, that is the authors' inference, not something they measured.
The 2026 review states that none of the studies it covered included a longitudinal training intervention. A limited, non-systematic PubMed search for this article found no training study comparing pulldown grips either. So "wide for width, close for thickness" is untested in these studies rather than disproved. The grip studies also report the lat as one muscle, so they do not show that underhand targets the lower lats. Apart from the 2025 study and parts of the review, the papers were read as abstracts.
No significant difference does not prove the grips are equal, and the 2025 authors suggest large differences between individuals may explain their result. The samples were small and mostly or entirely men, and most sets were short tests rather than working sets, so results may not transfer to women or beginners.
What differs between the grips
Wide overhand: only the 2002 study found a lat advantage in both the pull and the return. The widest grip also allowed the least load in the 2014 study: a six-repetition maximum of 77.3 kg, against 80.3 kg narrow and 80 kg medium.
Close overhand: at about shoulder width, neither the 2025 nor the 2014 study found a significant lat difference from wider grips over the whole movement.
Neutral: the 2025 study found no significant lat difference between neutral grips and the other versions, and a 2009 study of 24 trained men found none among V-bar, front and behind-the-neck pulls.
Underhand: a 2010 study of 12 men, designed to separate width from hand orientation, found more lat activity overhand at both widths it tested, a result the 2026 review calls unreplicated. The 2002 study's comparison mixed width and orientation, and the 2025 study found no significant lat difference at about shoulder width. That 2025 study also found no significant biceps difference between grips over the whole movement, but one study does not settle that question.
Behind the neck: there is no consistent lat reason to choose it. The 2002 study favored the front pull, the 2009 study found no lat difference, and a 2024 study of 14 men split by phase of the lift. The 2026 review treats the neck and shoulder concern as biomechanical reasoning, not a measured injury difference, and considers the front pull a reasonable default.
How to choose a grip and judge it
These steps are practical guidance, not tested by the studies. Try your available grips with light sets and keep the one you can pull through a full range with control and without discomfort. If several qualify, these studies give no strong lat reason to prefer one, so pick the one you will keep using. If pain persists, see a qualified professional.
Then keep the grip, handle and hand position the same for four to six weeks, a rule of thumb for seeing a trend. Log each grip as a separate exercise. In the 2014 study, load changed with width alone, and the texts read for this article give no load comparison for neutral or underhand grips. So treat numbers from different grips as not directly comparable, as a precaution rather than a finding.
Judge progress within one grip: more repetitions at the same load, or more load for the same repetitions with the same form. This shows your performance improved, not which muscle did the extra work. A flat result shows your numbers stalled, not that the grip caused it.
A hypothetical example, not study data or app output: Lena logs a wide overhand pulldown at 55 kg for three sets of 8, then gets 8 repetitions at 60 kg with a neutral handle. Those 5 kg do not show that neutral is better for her lats. She prefers how it feels and logs it as a new exercise. Five weeks later she reaches three sets of 10 at 60 kg: progress within that grip, not a comparison with her old numbers.
Where Nemeo fits
Nemeo lets you log exercises, sets, repetitions and loads, and its exercise library lists pulldown variants separately, including neutral-grip and reverse-grip versions. It analyzes your performance across sessions, so you can see whether you are progressing, stable or regressing on the grip you chose. It does not measure muscle activation and cannot tell you which grip is best for your lats.
Sources
- Buonsenso A, et al. (2025). Electromyographic Analysis of Back Muscle Activation During Lat Pulldown Exercise: Effects of Grip Variations and Forearm Orientation. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 10(3):345
- Andersen V, et al. (2014). Effects of grip width on muscle strength and activation in the lat pull-down. J Strength Cond Res 28(4):1135-42
- Lusk SJ, Hale BD, Russell DM (2010). Grip width and forearm orientation effects on muscle activity during the lat pull-down. J Strength Cond Res 24(7):1895-900
- Signorile JF, Zink AJ, Szwed SP (2002). A comparative electromyographical investigation of muscle utilization patterns using various hand positions during the lat pull-down. J Strength Cond Res 16(4):539-46
- Sperandei S, et al. (2009). Electromyographic analysis of three different types of lat pull-down. J Strength Cond Res 23(7):2033-8
- Padovan R, et al. (2024). High-Density Electromyography Excitation in Front vs. Back Lat Pull-Down Prime Movers. J Hum Kinet 91(Spec Issue):47-60
- Di Fonza D, et al. (2026). Electromyographic Analysis of Latissimus Dorsi Activation During Common Resistance Training Exercises: A Narrative Review. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 11(3):315
- Vigotsky AD, et al. (2022). Longing for a Longitudinal Proxy: Acutely Measured Surface EMG Amplitude is not a Validated Predictor of Muscle Hypertrophy. Sports Med 52(2):193-199