There seems to be a few exercises that, when openly avoided by members on this forum, usually lead to someone being named a "pansy" or a girl. These exercises are namely deadlifts and squats, and a controversy almost always ensues between the religious Squat & Dead zealots and the "Pansy" pack. I personally am questioning the effectiveness of the deadlift in building a big back, and I am willing to wager, at the expense of being called a pansy, that a big back can be developed without deadlifts at all.
Now, I am not a Chris Mason or Tom Mutaffis when it comes to explaining the mechanics of an exercise. I propose this assumption first because I personally have had lower back problems for a long time and deadlifts, certainly with proper form, still result in lower back pain. And that made me begin thinking about the motion of the lift and how beneficial it is, on its own, to the growth of the back. Can I build a thick, wide back by simply doing heavy rows, various grip pull-ups/chins, and lat pulls? Beyond that, the deadlift is highly regarded, along with the squats, as a lift that stimulates overall growth. I personally think that maybe I would be avoiding serious lower back injury by removing the deads from my workouts, yet still able to build a big upper back by doing other heavy exercises and grow just the same. Some of you, well..... a lot of you, will not agree with this because, of course, you're most likely pretty dogmatic about the deadlift and its effectiveness. If the deadlifts are recommended to not be eliminated from any serious lifter's workouts, I'd like someone to provide a detailed explanation of why. Hopefully, someone can provide a supporting argument for my hypothesis.
Thoughts? Discuss please.