Gymnastics and bodyweight S&C - supperior to weight lifting

[shiftedShapes]

Ido would you recommend that people do not train overhead flyes until they are strong enough to do inverted cross pulls? Or rear lateral raises until they can do lever to victorian pulls (oh that's right that has never been done).

Where did you see me say that? I am sorry, the fact that you are unable to create an optimal and balanced program with body weight strength and conditioning does not mean it cannot be done. Educate yourself on the subject. No body says you need a 1:1 ratio between two antagonistic movements, actualy, it is usualy quite impossible and represents for me simplistic thinking.

There is no way that anyone is strong enough to train exercises that hit the full range of motion with just bodyweight exercises.

Another absurd claim. Again, if you dont know how to, that does not mean it cant be done. Anything in bodyweight strength and conditioning is scalable and can be brought to lower levels of intensity. Nobody says you have to use your whole bodyweight in each exercise selection you make, a fraction of it is enough in some cases.

so how specifically would you train the various fly movements for someone who is too weak to perform them as ring exercises. I'm assuming that you are in this group and cannot press from back lever to planche, perform inverted butterflye mounts and etc..

Please explain how your selections would be superior to the various dumbell or cable alternatives.

[John Sapinoso]

Please explain how your selections would be superior to the various dumbell or cable alternatives.

The answer to your question is the purpose of this very thread. Reread the first post it explains how body weight exercises are superior to weight lifting; the basic idea being that moving your body through space has carry over to moving an external load, but not vice versa. As for examples of specific exercises, one need only to practice some ingenuity to increase leverage or decrease load to create an easier progression.

____________________________

Ido,

(or anyone else knowledgeable on the subject who cares to chime in)

I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter of using added weights for simple exercises rather than doing a more complex one solely with body weight. Would my time be better spent doing the more complex one all the time and dropping the volume or keeping the volume and dropping the intensity by changing the exercise. As of now I stagger my exercises and do two tiers of related exercises and add weight to the easier one.

There are two types of ways I do this: an example of the first is doing one arm lever pulls one day and then adding weight (or TUT) to two arm lever pulls another day. I'm concerned that due to the specificity of each exercise there may not be optimal transfer or strength; conversely i'd be concerned about training the same movement too frequently.

The second type is during the same workout: for example, doing straddle planches and then reverting to a weighted tuck if I fatigue on the last few sets. I've noticed in Coach Sommer's WODs he notes you should pick a progression you can stick with the duration of the workout and to err on the conservative side. However, in this specific example, my weak link is my hip and lower back strength and my shoulders would not be exercised as much if i did tucks instead.

Looking forward to your replies.

Much thanks,

Johnny.

[shiftedShapes]

Please explain how your selections would be superior to the various dumbell or cable alternatives.

The answer to your question is the purpose of this very thread. Reread the first post it explains how body weight exercises are superior to weight lifting; the basic idea being that moving your body through space has carry over to moving an external load, but not vice versa. As for examples of specific exercises, one need only to practice some ingenuity to increase leverage or decrease load to create an easier progression.

This thread is making a claim, that bodyweight exercises are in all cases superior. I'm pointing out one area in which I believe that they are not. If Ido would like to stand beyond his claim he will have to refute me.

[John Sapinoso]

Shift,

This thread is making a claim, that bodyweight exercises are in all cases superior. I'm pointing out one area in which I believe that they are not. If Ido would like to stand beyond his claim he will have to refute me.

Don't be so eager to seek an answer if you are not willing to open mind to hear it. As previously mentioned, there are infinite ways to scale a body weight exercise; I mentioned increasing leverage and decreasing load. A specific example for Victorian would be a digression from this thread but since you have so persistently asked:

You can increase leverage by moving the fulcrum point higher up your arm and supporting it with a strap or a bar; you can decrease the load on your lower half by doing a tuck, straddle or half lay variation or supporting it. I train Victorians like this. I train Maltese like this. I do Maltese movements with light weights to help rehab my elbow and biceps, my weak links; holding half my weight in each arm will not transfer to holding a Maltese, just as a 2 x BW bench press does not transfer to planche push ups.

If you cannot scale an exercise, you either lack strength in prequisite BW exercises or your mind has not explored the enough possibilities to apply your current strength. I'm not suggesting mr everyday joe shmo do scaled victorian exercises, but trying to build a victorian with weights is an inferior path.

I'm not here to convince you.

-Johnny

[JL]

Ido,

(or anyone else knowledgeable on the subject who cares to chime in)

I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter of using added weights for simple exercises rather than doing a more complex one solely with body weight. Would my time be better spent doing the more complex one all the time and dropping the volume or keeping the volume and dropping the intensity by changing the exercise. As of now I stagger my exercises and do two tiers of related exercises and add weight to the easier one.

There are two types of ways I do this: an example of the first is doing one arm lever pulls one day and then adding weight (or TUT) to two arm lever pulls another day. I'm concerned that due to the specificity of each exercise there may not be optimal transfer or strength; conversely i'd be concerned about training the same movement too frequently.

Much thanks,

Johnny.

I wondered about this myself. We all know a big contributor is the joint angles, and how close it relates to the prime movement you want to improve. With the straight arm planche, correct me if I'm wrong, but the extent of the resistance is due to the angle of the extended arms in relation to the torso. Since the arc is greater for tuck>straddle>full planche, it is the easiest. So, the problem should be that even though the extra weight added to the tuck could equalize the hold times, a slightly different joint angle is worked, and that should (in theory) lead to less carryover to a more difficult version performed for the same time under tension. As we all know, however, different theories exist as to what is the ideal intensity (percentage of 1 rep max), and based on that, it could favor either scenario as ideal. At least in my own head, it comes to a cross roads of what is the ideal joint angle vs. % of 1 rep max. When do you favor more exact specificity, and when do you favor less specificity, but a more ideal % of 1 rep max? I visualize it on a graph like this: On the x axis you would have the % of 1 rep max, and could be represented as the size effect on strength increases for each varying %. The Y axis would be representative of the difference in the range of motion in degrees (for example, the tuck planche), and its percent transfer to the target range of motion (example: the straddle planche). If there was an undisputed size effect for a fundamental intensity, and an undisputed percent transfer for various degrees separation, you could multiply the size effect by the % transfer and determine what is the better route. Right? I haven't found much agreement on either, so once you factor in error, it could be a pretty large affective range to work in.

With all that said, my intuition suggests that there is less difference between weighted tuck planche pushups and straddle planche pushups, than there is static weighted tuck planche and straddle planche, because the joint angles worked through become more similar (except for the lock out). Standard front lever vs. one arm lever seem like they would be the least transferable based on how the positions look. Just my thoughts, anyway.

[Longshanks]

Firstly ts00nami, well bloody done. Those 1-arm lever pulls look redonkulously hard! lol. I know I'm not that experienced compared to most on this thread but I would have thought the first benefit people would have mentioned of weights Vs bodyweight would be saftey. I mean if you too tired on the last set of lever holds the worst thing that can happen is you drop to the floor. Even with handstands or planches, worst case you knock your nose on the way down, feel like a plonker and remember to tuck and roll next time. The same cannot be said for weights if you run out of steam with a double BW on your back during a squat, or worse 1.5 BW over your head. I remembered these picture from years ago and thought it was relevent.

[Felipe]

Slizzardman

Agreed. The generalization are impossible to be made for all athletes and sport, but we should agree on the fact that most of coaches in modern times still spend little time in the gym. Strength always matters.

Ido

I didn't claim that you claim (!) that strength doesn't help, it was about the hypertrophy coming from lifting: it's true that an 80kg joe can be affected of serious hypertrophy, but an average joe is overweight, so the problem is fat not hypertrophy; even so, why an athlete of such weight would be preoccupied for it?

All my IHMOs are based on my actual knowledge and experience, I don't have experiments on thousands of people to scientifically demonstrate them, they can be suggested as a generic goal to reach for fitness enthusiasts, with all the limits of the generalization.

Longshanks

The one in the photo is the most stupid man in the world.

The squat cage have iron bar to prevent that, which he didn't use.

Bench can actually be a dangerous exercise because of a sticking point where, if exhausted, you stop and drop the bar.

Pro-gymnastics has an higher probability of injuries than pro-lifting.

[Neal Winkler]

All my IHMOs are based on my actual knowledge and experience, I don't have experiments on thousands of people to scientifically demonstrate them, they can be suggested as a generic goal to reach for fitness enthusiasts, with all the limits of the generalization.

Well, now you changing what you said. You said that your numbers were for intermediate athletes of all sports, not general fitness.

Also, if you have no studies or thousands of athletes that you have trained, where is your data coming from? Merely from yourself? How relevant could a data set of one be for the general population?

[shiftedShapes]

Firstly ts00nami, well bloody done. Those 1-arm lever pulls look redonkulously hard! lol. I know I'm not that experienced compared to most on this thread but I would have thought the first benefit people would have mentioned of weights Vs bodyweight would be saftey. I mean if you too tired on the last set of lever holds the worst thing that can happen is you drop to the floor. Even with handstands or planches, worst case you knock your nose on the way down, feel like a plonker and remember to tuck and roll next time. The same cannot be said for weights if you run out of steam with a double BW on your back during a squat, or worse 1.5 BW over your head. I remembered these picture from years ago and thought it was relevent.

plenty of people tear muscles on the rings or injure themselves doing other advanced bodyweight moves.

[shiftedShapes]

Shift,

This thread is making a claim, that bodyweight exercises are in all cases superior. I'm pointing out one area in which I believe that they are not. If Ido would like to stand beyond his claim he will have to refute me.

Don't be so eager to seek an answer if you are not willing to open mind to hear it. As previously mentioned, there are infinite ways to scale a body weight exercise; I mentioned increasing leverage and decreasing load. A specific example for Victorian would be a digression from this thread but since you have so persistently asked:

You can increase leverage by moving the fulcrum point higher up your arm and supporting it with a strap or a bar; you can decrease the load on your lower half by doing a tuck, straddle or half lay variation or supporting it. I train Victorians like this. I train Maltese like this. I do Maltese movements with light weights to help rehab my elbow and biceps, my weak links; holding half my weight in each arm will not transfer to holding a Maltese, just as a 2 x BW bench press does not transfer to planche push ups.

If you cannot scale an exercise, you either lack strength in prequisite BW exercises or your mind has not explored the enough possibilities to apply your current strength. I'm not suggesting mr everyday joe shmo do scaled victorian exercises, but trying to build a victorian with weights is an inferior path.

I'm not here to convince you.

-Johnny

this is a decent start but you have not come anywhere close to answering my question. Firstly all you have described is a victorian hold, this is only the top portion of a reverse fly, how would you perform the entire ROM which as you may know can extend past parallel. You will still have to provide examples of how to do the other flys without weights but more importantly, prove that your methods are superior. Keep in mind that with free weights I can do any of the these flys with palms facing up or down or anywhere in between.

If you're not here to convince me then stop trying.

[shiftedShapes]

Ido,

(or anyone else knowledgeable on the subject who cares to chime in)

I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter of using added weights for simple exercises rather than doing a more complex one solely with body weight. Would my time be better spent doing the more complex one all the time and dropping the volume or keeping the volume and dropping the intensity by changing the exercise. As of now I stagger my exercises and do two tiers of related exercises and add weight to the easier one.

There are two types of ways I do this: an example of the first is doing one arm lever pulls one day and then adding weight (or TUT) to two arm lever pulls another day. I'm concerned that due to the specificity of each exercise there may not be optimal transfer or strength; conversely i'd be concerned about training the same movement too frequently.

Much thanks,

Johnny.

I wondered about this myself. We all know a big contributor is the joint angles, and how close it relates to the prime movement you want to improve. With the straight arm planche, correct me if I'm wrong, but the extent of the resistance is due to the angle of the extended arms in relation to the torso. Since the arc is greater for tuck>straddle>full planche, it is the easiest. So, the problem should be that even though the extra weight added to the tuck could equalize the hold times, a slightly different joint angle is worked, and that should (in theory) lead to less carryover to a more difficult version performed for the same time under tension. As we all know, however, different theories exist as to what is the ideal intensity (percentage of 1 rep max), and based on that, it could favor either scenario as ideal. At least in my own head, it comes to a cross roads of what is the ideal joint angle vs. % of 1 rep max. When do you favor more exact specificity, and when do you favor less specificity, but a more ideal % of 1 rep max? I visualize it on a graph like this: On the x axis you would have the % of 1 rep max, and could be represented as the size effect on strength increases for each varying %. The Y axis would be representative of the difference in the range of motion in degrees (for example, the tuck planche), and its percent transfer to the target range of motion (example: the straddle planche). If there was an undisputed size effect for a fundamental intensity, and an undisputed percent transfer for various degrees separation, you could multiply the size effect by the % transfer and determine what is the better route. Right? I haven't found much agreement on either, so once you factor in error, it could be a pretty large affective range to work in.

With all that said, my intuition suggests that there is less difference between weighted tuck planche pushups and straddle planche pushups, than there is static weighted tuck planche and straddle planche, because the joint angles worked through become more similar (except for the lock out). Standard front lever vs. one arm lever seem like they would be the least transferable based on how the positions look. Just my thoughts, anyway.

Excellent points!

[Joshua Naterman]

Shift,

This thread is making a claim, that bodyweight exercises are in all cases superior. I'm pointing out one area in which I believe that they are not. If Ido would like to stand beyond his claim he will have to refute me.

Don't be so eager to seek an answer if you are not willing to open mind to hear it. As previously mentioned, there are infinite ways to scale a body weight exercise; I mentioned increasing leverage and decreasing load. A specific example for Victorian would be a digression from this thread but since you have so persistently asked:

You can increase leverage by moving the fulcrum point higher up your arm and supporting it with a strap or a bar; you can decrease the load on your lower half by doing a tuck, straddle or half lay variation or supporting it. I train Victorians like this. I train Maltese like this. I do Maltese movements with light weights to help rehab my elbow and biceps, my weak links; holding half my weight in each arm will not transfer to holding a Maltese, just as a 2 x BW bench press does not transfer to planche push ups.

If you cannot scale an exercise, you either lack strength in prequisite BW exercises or your mind has not explored the enough possibilities to apply your current strength. I'm not suggesting mr everyday joe shmo do scaled victorian exercises, but trying to build a victorian with weights is an inferior path.

I'm not here to convince you.

-Johnny

this is a decent start but you have not come anywhere close to answering my question. Firstly all you have described is a victorian hold, this is only the top portion of a reverse fly, how would you perform the entire ROM which as you may know can extend past parallel. You will still have to provide examples of how to do the other flys without weights but more importantly, prove that your methods are superior. Keep in mind that with free weights I can do any of the these flys with palms facing up or down or anywhere in between.

If you're not here to convince me then stop trying.

First off, you're a pretty rude person. Your tone is more than a little condescending, and that just isn't polite. It's probably funny and hypocritical for me to say that in some people's eyes, because I have been less than kind in my posts on occasion. I hope you will be more polite in the future, just as I have been trying to be.

As for your question, you move the fulcrum closer to the body when possible to reduce the effective load and/or you shorten the length of the pulling lever by moving the point of force exertion closer to the joint. When those can't be done you use bands to provide assistance. Sometimes you have to do a combination of those approaches. Instead of working full bodyweight inverted cross pulls, for example, you could run bands through a tight weight belt and loop them over a bar or through a carabeener, or you could use a pulley system to reduce effective bodyweight. That will take weight off, so that you are now doing assisted inverted cross pulls. Those will work you harder than doing overhead flyes on a cable machine, because the instability will force more motor units to be recruited in order to handle the constantly shifting load. As a result, not only are the larger muscles working harder than a cable machine will force them to work, the unstable nature of working on rings forces all the small stabilizing muscles to work more as well, which allows greater joint stability and integrity to develop, which in turn leads to both faster progress and less chance of injury. Finally, because you are training a movement that is nearly identical to the unassisted inverted cross, you will be developing the balance and kinesthetic awareness that you need to perform an unassisted inverted cross, allowing you to perform the actual skill far more quickly than if you tried to build all the strength with cables.

As for the reverse flyes, I for one have done them with a homemade pulley system and a ladder to support my legs behind the knee. The pulleys reduce my bodyweight by half, and by supporting my legs I am able to make the exercise easy enough to perform with bodyweight. Bands are of course a possible substitute for the pulley system, as is a partner spot. I, now, have answered your specific question about the reverse flyes. The same concept can be extended to every single bodyweight exercise I can think of. The more unstable nature of working on the rings does make them a better strength builder than the cables. It is certainly possible that working with the cables as well as the rings could be useful, but in most cases the methods I have outlined to make the exercise do-able with the body on the rings are going to produce faster results and a stronger athlete than the cables will. The only cases that would possibly benefit from the cables more would be people who are injured and can not work out on the rings at the time. Even then, once they are rehabilitated enough to use the rings, the rings will provide better training results.

To give you one more way to use rings to perform cable exercises, let's use the standard chest fly as an example. On cables you are moving the same weight the whole time, from the beginning to the end of the fly. You will notice that when performing horizontal chest flyes on the rings in the standard position are hardest when the fly is the widest, and easiest when the hands are closest together. You can change that by anchoring the rings farther apart than normal. If you have a cable machine and hang rings 4+ feet apart, the fly will be hardest as you bring the arms together, and holding the hands near each other will only be possible for a few moments. This will make the exercise far harder and more productive than the cables ever can. Gregor could use this method to boost his strength in the press from inverted cross to handstand. It will be MUCH harder than performing them on standard rings. By controlling the distance between attachment points, you can control the difficulty of the exercise. This method transforms even the normally simple rings support position into a maximal effort. I came up with it myself in the past two weeks and I am quite proud of this discovery

I believe I have answered your questions fully. I have provided a complete description of how any trainee can adapt the bodyweight exercises to their current strength levels, and I have explained why they will be more effective than cables. If there is anything I have missed, or if you have more questions, please post them and myself and the others will offer more answers.

Also, as a side note, Ido is not claiming that bodyweight exercises are superior in all cases. If you read his posts, he says that the olympic lifts and lower body lifting absolutely produces more power than pure bodyweight exercises, though that level of power development is not usually necessary or productive for all athletes.

Here is the quote, from page one of this thread.

If you are not a gymnast/acrobat or your interest in bodyweight skills is only one part of your world, you may still be interested in using some weighted lower body work, especialy since I feel its effect cannot be duplicated with only bodyweight exercises. (I am not just presenting a bodyweight aproach because I am a fanatic, but with sound reasoning behind it)

If one is interested in optimal development of such traits as lower body explosiveness - sprints, jumps, etc.. there is no better way to do it than to use these exercises.

It does not mean you cannot develop these abilities at all with bodyweight work, as ive demonstrated in my training facility in the past, but it is far from optimal.

[Guest Ido Portal]

shiftedShapes,

I do not need to prove anything, it has been proven by research for me. I do my homework, as you should.

Educate yourself on the superiority of closed kinetic chain movements in comparison with open kinetic chain ones, for example. (Most gymanstics stuff is CKC, and the rings are the ultimate tool for CKC work)

Educate yourself on the neuromuscular activation during complex exercises as opposed to isolated ones. (as mentioned before)

Gymnastics and bodyweight work, properly applied, bring the best in those worlds. I am not even talking about other amazing improvements in kinesthetic sense when moving ones own body through space as opposed to a weight, and other useful adaptations from the required body tension, core activation, and more and more..

Bodyweight work (for the upper body) produces athletes that can do anything they want later on. Countless ex-gymnasts did the 'jump' into other strength (and not only strength) sports after their careers - strongman, powerlifting, olifting and body building. In Russia, this is considered normal - the strongest people in the strength sports are very often ex-gymnasts. (trained hard in gymnastics till the age of 14-21)

If you do not know how to scale bodyweight and gymnastics strength movements, I suggest you also educate yourself on that. I do not have the time to explain to you the infinite mediums that this can easly be done with... (Partner assistance, elastics, progression work, counter weights, dream machine, etc, etc...) It has been discussed in this forum from the day it has opened..

Ido.

[Felipe]

Well, now you changing what you said. You said that your numbers were for intermediate athletes of all sports, not general fitness.

Also, if you have no studies or thousands of athletes that you have trained, where is your data coming from? Merely from yourself? How relevant could a data set of one be for the general population?

The difference between an athlete and a fitness enthusiast should be only about specialization (this according to the definition of fitness made by the crossfit journal)

My data is coming from the sources I've written about in my previous post (rippetoe, kurz, rosstraining, crossfit, stronglifts and many others). The intermediate-advance lifting standards are an old debate based on rippetoe's table you can read on exrx.net (interesting to note that in the second edition of practical programming he didnt include them, because of many flames and debate that arose on the web)

[Mats Trane]

Ido

I Couldn´t agree more. I ´ve tried to gain weight and muscle my whole life (mostly through weihgt-training). My weight has been 62 kilos ever since I was 20 (I´m today 46). After my son started to do gymnastics I got very inspired doing bodyweight excercises. In the beginning of this year I also found this website so I started training acording to Coach Sommer's book and this site. Since april I´ve gained 5 kilos in pure muscle!! The best thing about bodyweight excercies is that you can do them basically anywhere and anytime. For me this has been great as i have 3 kids and I´m a part owner in a comapany and dont have time to go tothe gym.

Thanks again Ido, Coach Sommer, Gregor and Blairbob!

[Joshua Naterman]

Well, now you changing what you said. You said that your numbers were for intermediate athletes of all sports, not general fitness.

Also, if you have no studies or thousands of athletes that you have trained, where is your data coming from? Merely from yourself? How relevant could a data set of one be for the general population?

The difference between an athlete and a fitness enthusiast should be only about specialization (this according to the definition of fitness made by the crossfit journal)

My data is coming from the sources I've written about in my previous post (rippetoe, kurz, rosstraining, crossfit, stronglifts and many others). The intermediate-advance lifting standards are an old debate based on rippetoe's table you can read on exrx.net (interesting to note that in the second edition of practical programming he didnt include them, because of many flames and debate that arose on the web)

As far as going by the crossfit journal, I have a number of issues with their program, though the underlying concept is great. I personally think that anyone who engages in regular physical activity should consider themselves an athlete on some level, whether it is recreational or more than that. I personally don't think that the specialization defines whether an athlete is an athlete, but rather what type of athlete they are. What do you think about that?

I haven't looked at the Rippetoe tables, but like I have said earlier, the lifts you posted, especially if one must perform at the specified level in ALL the lifts, can only be considered intermediate for a weight lifter. Most other athletes can't devote that much of their training to one type of adaptation without taking away from their performance.

[rubadub]

It's all my very personal opinion, maturating from studying Rippetoe and Kurz literature, plus reading sites like Stronglifts, Rosstraining, Crossfit.

I have read some of Rippetoes quotes online, he appears to be borderline homophobic or sexist and quite insulting with his supposedly witty remarks. Some of these sites will tend to attract over-macho alpha male types.

I think that if you want to qualify as intermediate athlete of ANY sport you should be able to perform these:

Press 1,25xBW

Bench 1,50xBW

Squat ATG 2,00xBW

Deadlift 2,25xBW

You say ANY sport, and I expect some "macho men" would simply dismiss and sports not requiring these levels as "not being real sports". I doubt many intermediate golfers, swimmers, distance runners, cyclists tennis players etc could do those numbers.

Here as crossfit "strength standards"

http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/WLSTANDARDS.pdf

I take issue with the quote

In the tables above, the term"untrained" refers to the expected level of strength in a healthy individual who has not trained on the exercise before but can perform it correctly. This represents the minimumlevel of strength required to maintain a reasonable quality of life in a sedentary individual.

Probably dismissing/branding 90% of the population as not being able to enjoy a reasonable quality of life.

[Felipe]

An athlete should have a goal apart from general fitness, it can be a non sport-specific one, but definitely a specialized one (ex. be the fastest man at running 17439m (aerobic) or the center a basket hole at 200m of distance (power, precision)) because general fitness has its own limits (quite all crossfitters train mainly for maximizing anaerobic output (tabata method), trying to perform long workouts in short time, the famous "girl named" routines).

The ultimate athletic non-specific goal (being the fittest man of the world) would be like a jack of all trades, master of none.

An interesting goal is "being the healthiest".

I'm reading an italian site about this (http://www.albanesi.it) which basically says (apart from other interesting things like food choices and psycological tests) that running is the healthiest sport and that 10 km is the best distance to training for.

I would like to run for distance like that, but I can't do both this and strength training (they interfere each other). I decided to drop the first since I will never stop gymnastics (my goals include emulating coach sakamoto stength longevity).

For now I'm incrementing strength, since I always feel not having a sufficient amount of it (and not having a proper gymnastics gym, which is the other big reason).

rubadub

http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifti ... dards.html They are the same

(I exaggerated on upper body, more realistical 1x press and 1,25x bench, lower body ok apart from hypertrophy for heavier athlete; I was definitely too optimisting wroting that they were intermediate and for all sports, they are quite advanced ones, but I still think that athletes should maximize strength when and if they can, up to this limits)

As for the "all sport generalization". I will consider that all sports forums in the world and the consideration that we are doing here are useless, since there are "sports" like chess and bridge which doesn't include physical training at all . Even videogames are now "sport". Generalizing is bad, I understood that.

[Mike B]

I take issue with the quote

In the tables above, the term"untrained" refers to the expected level of strength in a healthy individual who has not trained on the exercise before but can perform it correctly. This represents the minimum level of strength required to maintain a reasonable quality of life in a sedentary individual.

Probably dismissing/branding 90% of the population as not being able to enjoy a reasonable quality of life.

look at that table. Those are very low numbers. If someone at those body weights cannot hit anywhere close to those numbers they are either in a body weight too high for their height (high body fat/ height ratio) or they are weak and frail. and where did you get 90% from? did you know that people make up statistics 68.945% of the times they quote them? (its true :twisted: )

but one thing i do take issue with is 'enjoy a reasonable quality of life'. some people may be just fine with being extremely weak or overweight. The fattest man in the world actually wanted to get heavier before they lifted him out of his house with a crane to get surgery. (O.o) But who is to say he didn't enjoy a reasonable quality of life? keyword is enjoy, completely subjective.

[Felipe]

Hmm, I disagree with that. Even if happiness is a subjective state, there are objective ways to attain to.

Exercising is truly a better way to feel alive and superior to being a coach potato. Illuding yourself of being happy, weighting 300 kg must be terrible, just like dreaming: i enjoy lucid dreaming alot, but it's painful when I realize that all I saw was fake.

Eating good + Training hard + Sleeping well + other 12 hours doing a job you like = Happiness for sure :roll:

[Guest Ido Portal]

Friends, lets keep the discussion closer to the original post, further discussion about these weightlifting standarts should be made elsewhere, not in this post. (Perheps elsewhere as not in this forum, as this place is dedicated to gymnastics and bodyweight strength and conditioning)

Thank you for understanding,

Ido.

[Mike B]

Hmm, I disagree with that. Even if happiness is a subjective state, there are objective ways to attain to.

Exercising is truly a better way to feel alive and superior to being a coach potato. Illuding yourself of being happy, weighting 300 kg must be terrible, just like dreaming: i enjoy lucid dreaming alot, but it's painful when I realize that all I saw was fake.

Eating good + Training hard + Sleeping well + other 12 hours doing a job you like = Happiness for sure :roll:

was being sarcastic, i think your taking it a bit far. sounds like you may have issues of inferiority if you feel a need to be superior to a couch potato

[Felipe]

I didn't want to make such an huge OT, instead my effort was about how to measure strength acquired from gymnastics.

To contribute on the main argument:

gymnastics is the most comprehensive way of training for fitness, but it needs proper methods and tools which aren't easy to found in commercial gyms.

I don't know what's the most efficient way for someone who haven't a gym and a coach to become strong and skilled, but I think that if you have a huge reserve of strength (as displayed by big david) it is relatively easy to acquire new abilities.

So in winter I use weights and in spring/summer gymnastics.

This is terrible to do for specific strength priorities, but should be enough for athletes involved in other sports or which doesn't have much time.

[Coach Sommer]

Friends, lets keep the discussion closer to the original post, further discussion about these weightlifting standarts should be made elsewhere, not in this post.

Thank you, Ido.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

[Joshua Naterman]

I didn't want to make such an huge OT, instead my effort was about how to measure strength acquired from gymnastics.

To contribute on the main argument:

gymnastics is the most comprehensive way of training for fitness, but it needs proper methods and tools which aren't easy to found in commercial gyms.

I don't know what's the most efficient way for someone who haven't a gym and a coach to become strong and skilled, but I think that if you have a huge reserve of strength (as displayed by big david) it is relatively easy to acquire new abilities.

So in winter I use weights and in spring/summer gymnastics.

This is terrible to do for specific strength priorities, but should be enough for athletes involved in other sports or which doesn't have much time.

Periodizing between gymnastics and weights is not the most functional way to do things. Many gymnastics skills require high levels of tendon and ligament strength to perform, and full ROM upper body weight lifting can not maintain this type of strength. By switching back and forth, you move from an overall superior method of upper body training to an inferior and then back to the superior. That is not a sane approach, though it would be popular in the fitness community today since people think they need to do different things all the time in order to be in shape.

There's not really any such thing as "reserve strength." I will assume that you mean a high level of maximal strength, since that makes more sense. I built much of my strength prior to my introduction to gymnastics training. I don't no for sure, but from the portrayals here of how Big Dave got to where he is and from what I have seen on his youtube channel, he built much of his strength with gymnastics. In either case, our ability to acquire new skills is affected by maximal strength but is primarily a function of our dedication and regular practice.

As for switching around between weights and gymnastics being enough for athletes involved in other sports or who don't have much time, it depends on what you mean. For Joe Shmoe the cardio kickboxer, who gets together with his friends at the local gym twice a week to get sweaty and spar a little, in a way his training doesn't matter because he is primarily there for fun, and not to win. However, if he has a given amount of training time, he will ALWAYS be better off using the most effective exercises for developing abilities he needs in his sport. To suggest that it is good enough for an athlete to switch between optimal training and sub-par training speaks poorly of your logical reasoning. The less time he has, the MORE important it becomes that he spend his time doing only the most productive exercises.

For an athlete who is serious about winning, who wants to be the best he or she can be, it is absolutely essential that they do not ever train with less than optimal exercises. For the upper body, these optimal exercises are gymnastics exercises. For the lower body, vibration plates and Deadlift/Squat/Olympic lifts are necessary to obtain absolute maximum ability in addition to the SLS and other gymnastics preparation, but for athletes who don't have to transfer leg power through the spine to an opponent, ie non-contact sports like flag football or soccer( I know, soccer is a contact sport, but you are not laying hands on the other players and shoving them with all of your might. And yes, I am aware some hand-to-body contact occurs, but it is not at a high enough intensity to require the spine-loading lifts be used in training.) the body weight variants may suffice.

To suggest that you need specialized equipment that is hard to find to build a gymnast's strength is a bit silly. Every park at every elementary school has something to do pull ups on. Every commercial gym has pull up bars, and nearly all of them have dip bars. You can do nearly all of the basic training on the floor and on the pull up bar. The only things you can't do are rings support and Bulgarian dips. If there is a Smith machine you can do Korean dips on it. If there isn't, you can go to the park and do them there when you are strong enough. Hell, you can use a tree branch for those as well as everything you would normally do on the pull up bars. So you can literally perform over 95% of gymnastics basic strength work with no specialized equipment whatsoever. Of course, you COULD spend 60 bucks and buy rings, and be able to do EVERYTHING.

There is no getting around the facts. They are quite simple and clear:

1) You do not need a lot of equipment to do gymnastics basic strength training. All you need is a floor and a tree branch to do 95% of it. For a few extra bucks you can either buy rings or make substitutes, and be able to do it ALL. For the floor GHR/NLC you need to be able to stick your feet under something. A car works perfectly. I don't think there is anyone here or anywhere else who doesn't have access to one of those, or a staircase, or worst case a bench somewhere.

2) There is no question that for the upper body, gymnastics work is for the most part more productive than weight lifting, and should be the basis for upper body. Proper programming still applies, of course.

3) While it is true that for absolute maximum development of lower body power some weight training must be included, a very high level of performance can still be achieved through the bodyweight variations.