Gymnastics and bodyweight S&C - supperior to weight lifting

[Joshua Naterman]

Yes,but what I was asking was there's a lot of people saying heavy squats/deadlifts are the best thing for your legs but they don't do them because they don't want to gain any weight in there legs. Obviously I don't know exactly what they do for legs,but if your doing for example the leg exercises in "Building the Gymnastic Body" I cant see your legs not growing. So if they are better wouldn't it be worth doing them instead because i don't think your legs would get that much bigger than they would doing even "building the gymnastic body" leg exercises let alone whatever else they may do for legs.

Note: Grammar was corrected for ease of reading. Writing correctly not only makes us think you have put thought into what you say, but also that you are intelligent enough to be worth answering. I know some forum members aren't from the US, but they do their best. Do yours as well. Sorry if I sound like a dick, but it was hard to take what you posted seriously the way it was originally written.

Growth depends on your training methodology and how you eat, but it will happen to some degree. BtGB exercises are great, but for maximum power in the legs you're going to need full ROM back squats and Olympic lifts or power cleans at the very least. Gymnasts don't need maximum power in the legs, they need excellent rebounding ability, which is quite different, and they are only rebounding with their bodyweight in competition. They simply do not need the level of leg strength and power that a football halfback, for example, would need, or a high jumper, or a long jumper. Why? They never jump for height unless it's off of a rebound, and they never need absolute maximum height or length, they just need whatever is required for the tumbling routine.

Would they benefit from it? Some more than others, though I personally think that deep squatting and some power cleans would probably help everyone, but that's for each coach to decide. If his athletes are kicking butt, why add something in that may cause a redistribution of mass that could affect performance? Gymnastics is very specific in leg requirements for both size and performance. They want what get's the job done, and no more.

The BtGB work still builds great strength over time, so it shouldn't be thought of as not being worthwhile. And, like Brain said, if you only eat for a certain size, that's the size you will stay. Period. If a gymnast were to incorporate heavy squats, they would be wise to transition over to working on singles only as quickly as is safely possible, about 4-6 months. Singles are going to cause the absolute least amount of growth of any useful protocol.

Deadlifts are of little use to a gymnast.

[michael]

Note: Grammar was corrected for ease of reading. Writing correctly not only makes us think you have put thought into what you say, but also that you are intelligent enough to be worth answering. I know some forum members aren't from the US, but they do their best. Do yours as well. Sorry if I sound like a dick, but it was hard to take what you posted seriously the way it was originally written.

slizzardman,

sorry if my question was hard to understand but i honostly thought it was a good question cosidering the previous posts and i appreciate your reply.

but are you serious,

intelligent enough to be worth answering

it was hard to take what you posted seriously

i think thats a bit of an over kill

btw im australian so its not like i cant even speak english

[Joshua Naterman]

To be clear, like I said I didn't say what I said to be insulting. I said it to raise your, and hopefully everyone's, awareness of how much your writing style affects your message. For example, if I replied saying " yes so the GBtraniang is pretty much asgood as squats.Traniang this way is good i think because bodies are heavy like weights. I dont think traniang GB will affect strength badly and maybe could keep legs from growing, so gymnasts probably do that" it would not have the same impact. I structured that short paragraph specifically to mimic what your post looked like. To me, what I wrote here makes me look stupid because of misspelling of basic words and running words together occasionally, and also because it is part opinion unsupported by fact. It would make me take a moment to decide whether it is even worth addressing.

I can promise you, for sure, with reputable data to back me up, that a well-written response to everything from a job interview to a forum post gets far more respect, attention, and positive feedback. I figured you spoke English, and probably can write well if you want to, because it wasn't terribly hard to figure out what you were asking. It did, honestly, take a little time, but not much. I had to re-read the sentences several times and reference different parts of the paragraph to make sure I knew what you were asking. I know we're here for gymnastics, but this is important too.

Again, I don't mean to hurt your feelings. I think it's important to point this stuff out so that you can decide whether to improve or not, because you may not realize what you are doing or what impact it has on readers.

[Neal Winkler]

Bravo, slizzy.

I second the motion: If you are a native english speaker, please use proper grammar.

[michael]

i know what you were trying to say but in your previous post you said you corrected my grammer but all you did was put in some capital letters and fix a few spelling mistakes,its not like i was saying stuff like "waz up bois" or acting like a little gangster kid.

" yes so the GBtraniang is pretty much asgood as squats.Traniang this way is good i think because bodies are heavy like weights. I dont think traniang GB will affect strength badly and maybe could keep legs from growing, so gymnasts probably do that" it would not have the same impact. I structured that short paragraph specifically to mimic what your post looked like.

it clearly wasnt that bad, but how would you have asked my question ?

[StevenL]

Don't worry about how he would have answered your question. That's not what this topic is about. It is about whether gymnastics and bodyweight strength and conditioning is superior to weightlifting.

Slizz is right. There are a lot of people that post here with, for lack of a better word, terrible grammar and wonder why no one takes them seriously or answers their questions. If you are a native speaker of English or not, please at least try to write in such a way that demonstrates your respect for not only yourself, but for Coach Sommer and his forum and all others that post in it.

There is no need to do anything but re-read your posts before you post and make sure they are not only legible, but that you have, to the best of your ability, used proper grammar and punctuation. Review any of Coach Sommer's posts for an example. Imagine if he posted something with the type of grammar and spelling that some others on this forum use.

Just my two cents. Sorry to add another post that doesn't add to the main topic(and I have loved every bit of this topic, especially Ido's posts), but I felt this needed to be said before it got out of hand.

[michael]

Don't worry about how he would have answered your question. That's not what this topic is about. It is about whether gymnastics and bodyweight strength and conditioning is superior to weightlifting.

Slizz is right. There are a lot of people that post here with, for lack of a better word, terrible grammar and wonder why no one takes them seriously or answers their questions. If you are a native speaker of English or not, please at least try to write in such a way that demonstrates your respect for not only yourself, but for Coach Sommer and his forum and all others that post in it.

There is no need to do anything but re-read your posts before you post and make sure they are not only legible, but that you have, to the best of your ability, used proper grammar and punctuation. Review any of Coach Sommer's posts for an example. Imagine if he posted something with the type of grammar and spelling that some others on this forum use.

Just my two cents. Sorry to add another post that doesn't add to the main topic(and I have loved every bit of this topic, especially Ido's posts), but I felt this needed to be said before it got out of hand.

my inital post was about the topic and i did re-read it and i thought it made sense but obviusly not because everyone seems to be congratulating "slizz" for picking me up on my appalling grammer, even though to me it looks like nothing more than a few accidental spelling mistakes.

oh and by the way i think you ment to say "dont worry about how he would have asked your question"

but you wrote

Don't worry about how he would have answered your question

i know wat you were trying to say so im not gonna be a hero about it and give you a big speach about being worth answering or not taking you seriously becuase i dont want to get off topic :wink:

[Philipp Hornung]

Chaps... would both of you mind stoping to bash?

[Ortprod]

yes,but what i was asking was theres alot of people saying heavy squats/deadlifts are the best thing for your legs but they dont do them because they dont want to gain any weight in there legs.obviously i dont know exactly what they do for legs,but if your doing for example the leg excersises in "building the gymnastic body" i cant see your legs not growing.so if they are better wouldnt it be worth doing them instead because i dont think your legs would get that much bigger than they would doing even "building the gymnastic body" leg excersises let alone watever else they may do for legs.

#1 I squat over 225-300lb weekly, and deadlift 300-400lb often. I also continue to do single legs squats and plyos. My legs are already big and there seems I can do nothing about it besides maybe take up distance running or stop training (fat chance) so for the time being I am still squatting heavy/not for hypertophy though.

#2 Look at Coach's kids for examples of about how much your legs will develop. This stuff, the implication of what is "best", is very dependent on goals. There is no reason to have over developed (25"-30" thighs) because quads are involved in about 5-10% of your power based activity (jump, sprint, etc) and because you will at some point be over compensating for the weight.

If you have smaller legs and just want to develop enough to make you do things, AND you like gymnastics, then do Coach's recommended leg exercises and develop your legs for the goal of maximal output in the way of body weight exercise.

#3 Please, everyone, try your best to be clear; BUT no matter how hard we try you can still make mistakes and things will get lost in translation. "to be is to be misunderstood" -Ray Capoverde

Let's go back to the topic at hand.

[Razz]

I think you guys might be misunderstanding each other, michael is asking why the squat would induce more hypertrophy than the BW leg exercises, if done for the sam repranges. AND why you would chose bw leg exercises over squats, IF the hypertrophy gain is equal.

[Ortprod]

With weighted squats; the pressure is greater through a larger range of motion for a longer duration when compared bw squats or plyometrics.

[Blairbob]

Does the BS or FS or OHS really have a greater ROM than the SLS?

I will agree on the pressure but duration could be manipulated as well.

[mauricioleal]

I think you guys might be misunderstanding each other, michael is asking why the squat would induce more hypertrophy than the BW leg exercises, if done for the sam repranges. AND why you would chose bw leg exercises over squats, IF the hypertrophy gain is equal.

The hypertrophy gain is not equal. Weighted squats elicit a greater neuroendocrine response, simply because more muscles (e.g. erectors) are being put under high tension. The legs/hips alone should be producing about the same amount of tension in a SLS (for analogous rep/load ranges), if not slightly more since there is a stronger balance component, but the total body aspect of weighted squats produces more total tension, and thus a greater hormonal response to make muscle grow. Try filming yourself from the front while shirtless in a heavy BS versus a heavy SLS. Your whole torso will be jacked in BS even though in theory it should only be a posterior chain exercise. That's why heavy squats miraculously improve peoples' bench presses.

[Ortprod]

Does the BS or FS or OHS really have a greater ROM than the SLS?

I will agree on the pressure but duration could be manipulated as well.

On the glutes, yes, there is greater ROM and pressure I believe. The hip angle is very different in a single leg squat as compared to a sub parallel back squat. I can pistol 115lb (+ my BW of 185lb minus whatever leverage) but I can only back squat 315lb and I maintain a very close stance because of my right glute loves to sleep.

Here is Rip on lowbar vs high bar vs front squat:

mC5-g1Ugmgc

Also, I meant greater pressure throughout the ROM, which in turn would be duration. I understand one can go slower but virtual pressure is not the same as a huge weight on your back, as Mauricioleal said, the pressure on the erectors is much different.

on a side note, if anyone does a lot of pistols and not any back squatting, I highly recommend looking into bulgarian lunges (great for hip flexor tension) and Ido's video on "the shrimp" (the hardest version I have seen of an airborn pistol) so as to hit the glutes and get a little more prone. You can very easily open your lumbar curve on a pistol and decrease the pressure on the glutes/hams.

The hypertrophy gain is not equal. Weighted squats elicit a greater neuroendocrine response, simply because more muscles (e.g. erectors) are being put under high tension. The legs/hips alone should be producing about the same amount of tension in a SLS (for analogous rep/load ranges), if not slightly more since there is a stronger balance component, but the total body aspect of weighted squats produces more total tension, and thus a greater hormonal response to make muscle grow. Try filming yourself from the front while shirtless in a heavy BS versus a heavy SLS. Your whole torso will be jacked in BS even though in theory it should only be a posterior chain exercise. That's why heavy squats miraculously improve peoples' bench presses.

I totally agree.

[Joshua Naterman]

Mauricio: Leg strength and spinal erector strength, both of which are strengthened during proper back squats. are major factors in bench press strength, especially when moving beyond your own bodyweight.

Also, hypothetically speaking, IF hypertrophy was equal, lack of equipment could be a motivation to not use back squats. Also, working unilaterally is different from bilateral work. Joint stabilization becomes a more limiting factor when you are on only one leg, which means that you will build strength in the stabilizing muscles to a greater degree with the SLS. Also, as most athletic activities require propulsion from a single leg, doing at least some regular SLS or equivalent work should help develop athletic abilities further than even full ROM bilateral squatting.

However, heavy squatting simply provides much more stimulation for the legs and the entire posterior chain and this leads to greater hypertrophy. Every athlete responds slightly differently, but up to at least bodyweight on the bar it should be very, very minimal hypertrophy. However, that's quite a low weight for anyone as a max, and not nearly enough to get excess hypertrophy. Typically singles up to 2x BW won't cause excess hypertrophy.

[michael]

so the reason for not squatting isnt because it directly causes more hypertrophy in the legs than bw leg work,but because it involves alot more muscles at once which causes a greater neuroendocrine response,which causes a greater hormonal response that produces hypertrophy throughout the whole body including the legs.so to avoid hypertrohpy you would break up your leg and lower back work into sls,ghr and rll which would work the same muscles as squats but avoid the large neuroendocrine response caused by working all the muscles at the same time. bw leg exercises will never give the same results in leg strength as squats but they are preferred in gymnastics because the ratio of strength to hypertrophy cant be matched by squats.

[mauricioleal]

so the reason for not squatting isnt because it directly causes more hypertrophy in the legs than bw leg work,but because it involves alot more muscles at once which causes a greater neuroendocrine response,which causes a greater hormonal response that produces hypertrophy throughout the whole body including the legs.so to avoid hypertrohpy you would break up your leg and lower back work into sls,ghr and rll which would work the same muscles as squats but avoid the large neuroendocrine response caused by working all the muscles at the same time. bw leg exercises will never give the same results in leg strength as squats but they are preferred in gymnastics because the ratio of strength to hypertrophy cant be matched by squats.

BW exercises can probably develop just as much leg strength as heavy squats, but not total posterior chain strength (the most useful kind of strength, in most sports anyway). However, ring work is so effective on the back also, that the combination of SLS and ring work is probably why so many gymnasts can get away with never hitting the weights and still go heavy the first time they touch them.

That's the theory anyway. The hypertrophy comparison is still kindof sketchy, because no one (to my knowledge) has really tried using regular heavy lifting in the gymnastics setting, where strength-to-weight ratio is king. Almost all heavy lifting has been relegated to actual weightlifters or powerlifters who care mostly about the weight on the bar (as opposed to their ability to transfer that strength to other skills), or to mixed-skill athletes like football players (or crossfitters) who are doing so much other stuff that it's hard to say where their overall performance originates from, and either way their goals are so varied and contradictory to gymnastics that it's not a worthy trade off to mimic too much of their training methods. As Coach Sommer has pointed out, most of the field sports are skewed towards posterior chain strength, while gymnastics (men's anyway) is shoulder girdle centric. I know it firsthand: having a big butt just weighs you down in flares :wink:, and extra mass also generally inhibits flexibility.

It's still debatable whether gymnasts would be better off doing some heavy squats and deads on the side of their usual routine, but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) Coach Sommer is still on the fence about it. If it ain't broke don't fix it kind of thing. He already is doing so much better just by having his kids on a structured S&C program using BW exercises, why risk ruining a good thing? Well, if it turns out their performance shoots through the roof when they incorporate lifting, then that will be a convincing argument, but it's just risky to make big changes when you're already running a high caliber program.

[michael]

BW exercises can probably develop just as much leg strength as heavy squats, but not total posterior chain strength (the most useful kind of strength, in most sports anyway). However, ring work is so effective on the back also, that the combination of SLS and ring work is probably why so many gymnasts can get away with never hitting the weights and still go heavy the first time they touch them.

is that to say that a gymnast without a sufficent amount of ring strength would have a weak posterior chain?

sorry about the 20 questions

[mauricioleal]

is that to say that a gymnast without a sufficent amount of ring strength would have a weak posterior chain?

sorry about the 20 questions

Eh, I honestly don't know enough to say. Not necessarily I suppose. The reason rings are so effective is because of the deleveraging possible and the stabilization required. Probably more the former than the latter. One can achieve de-leverage through other, simpler means; most of the ring positions can be achieved similarly on the floor or on another elevated apparatus (PU bar, parallel bars, a pair of chairs). But the de-stabilization component would require some other sort of apparatus. The rings are just the simplest and most versatile tool to do both of these things on.

[Neal Winkler]

The neuroendocrine response has been proven to have no effect on increasing hypertrophy.

Elevations in ostensibly anabolic hormones with resistance exercise enhance neither training-induced muscle hypertrophy nor strength of the elbow flexors

Daniel W.D. West1, Nicholas A. Burd1, Jason E. Tang1, Daniel R. Moore1, Aaron W. Staples2, Andrew M. Holwerda1, Steven K. Baker1, and Stuart M. Phillips1*

1 McMaster University

2 Exercise Metabolism Research Group

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: phillis@mcmaster.ca.

The aim of our study was to determine whether resistance exercise-induced elevations in endogenous hormones enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy with training. Twelve healthy young men (21.8 ± 1.2 y, BMI = 23.1 ± 0.6 kg.m-2) independently trained their elbow flexors for 15 weeks on separate days and under different hormonal milieu. In one training condition, participants performed isolated arm curl exercise designed to maintain basal hormone concentrations (low hormone, LH); in the other training condition, participants performed identical arm exercise to the LH condition followed immediately by a high volume of leg resistance exercise to elicit a large increase in endogenous hormones (High Hormone, HH). There was no elevation in serum growth hormone (GH), insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) or testosterone after the LH protocol, but significant (P < 0.001) elevations in these hormones immediately and 15 and 30 min after the HH protocol. The hormone responses elicited by each respective exercise protocol late in the training period were similar to the response elicited early in the training period indicating that a divergent post-exercise hormone response was maintained over the training period. Muscle cross-sectional area increased by 12% in LH and 10% in HH (P < 0.001) with no difference between conditions (condition x training interaction, P = 0.25). Similarly, type I (P < 0.01) and type II (P < 0.001) muscle fiber CSA increased with training with no effect of hormone elevation in the HH condition. Strength increased in both arms but the increase was not different between the LH and HH conditions. We conclude that exposure of loaded muscle to acute exercise-induced elevations in endogenous anabolic hormones enhances neither muscle hypertrophy nor strength with resistance training in young men.

Source: http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/s ... 147.2009v1

Resistance exercise-induced increases in putative anabolic hormones do not enhance muscle protein synthesis or intracellular signalling in young men

Daniel WD West1, Greg W Kujbida1, Daniel Moore1, Philip J Atherton2, Nicholas A Burd1, Jan P Padzik1, Michael DeLisio1, Jason E Tang1, Gianni Parise1, Michael J Rennie3, Steven K Baker1 and Stuart M Phillips1,4

+ Author Affiliations

1 McMaster University;

2 University of Nottingham;

3 University of Nottingham Graduate Medical School

* Corresponding author; email: phillis@mcmaster.ca

Abstract

We aimed to determine whether exercise-induced elevations in systemic concentration of testosterone, growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) enhanced post-exercise myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) and phosphorylation of signalling proteins important in regulating mRNA translation. Eight young men (20±1.1 y, BMI = 26±3.5 kg·m-2) completed two exercise protocols designed to maintain basal hormone concentrations (LH = low hormone) or elicit increases in endogenous hormones (HH = high hormone). In the LH protocol, participants performed a bout of unilateral resistance exercise with the elbow flexors. The HH protocol consisted of the same elbow flexor exercise with the contra-lateral arm followed immediately by high-volume leg resistance exercise. Participants consumed 25 g of protein after arm exercise to maximize MPS. Muscle biopsies and blood samples were taken as appropriate. There were no changes in serum testosterone, GH or IGF-1 after the LH protocol, whereas there were marked elevations after HH (testosterone, P < 0.001; GH, P < 0.001; IGF-1, P < 0.05). Exercise stimulated a rise MPS in the biceps brachii (rest = 0.040±0.007, LH = 0.071±0.008, HH = 0.064±0.014 %·h-1; P < 0.05) with no effect of elevated hormones (P = 0.72). Phosphorylation of the 70-kDa S6 protein kinase (p70S6K) also increased post-exercise (P < 0.05) with no differences between conditions. We conclude that the transient increases in endogenous purportedly anabolic hormones do not enhance fed-state anabolic signalling or MPS following resistance exercise. Local mechanisms are likely to be of predominant importance for the post-exercise increase in MPS.

Source: http://jp.physoc.org/content/early/2009 ... 0.abstract

[Joshua Naterman]

There's a serious flaw there. There were not two separate groups, AND there were not two separate periods. It was one group doing one period of two intermixed protocols. To have a good, conclusive study you either have to take two separate groups of similar people and have each group perform only one of the exercise protocols OR you could have just one group, where they did one protocol for 12 weeks and then the other, to see what was happening. Preferably both would be done.

Hormones affect all tissues, not just the ones you work out that day. The other arm was recovering, and any hormonal influence on the arm during HH days would have also been exerted on the arm that was on the LH protocol since it is, after all, one single human body.

[Neal Winkler]

There's a serious flaw there. There were not two separate groups, AND there were not two separate periods. It was one group doing one period of two intermixed protocols. To have a good, conclusive study you either have to take two separate groups of similar people and have each group perform only one of the exercise protocols OR you could have just one group, where they did one protocol for 12 weeks and then the other, to see what was happening. Preferably both would be done.

Hormones affect all tissues, not just the ones you work out that day. The other arm was recovering, and any hormonal influence on the arm during HH days would have also been exerted on the arm that was on the LH protocol since it is, after all, one single human body.

The researchers spaced out the training sessions so that the hormonal milieu of the HH protocol wouldn't affect the LH session, as they know that muscle protein synthesis is upregulated for only 48 hours. As long as you keep the sessions 48 hours apart or more, then how could the hormonal elevation from HH contribute to hypertrophy of the LH arm?

With that said, I agree I would prefer to see the type of study you described.

Also, do you agree with the belief that using protocols which raise anabolic hormones, post workout, build more muscle or strength than those which do not? If so, what studies can you show which prove this?

[Joshua Naterman]

Come on man, I'm surprised you're missing this! When you work out, the healing and growth process can easily last for more than 48 hours. That's one reason that even pulse cycling works wonders. Pulse cycling, by the way, is when you use an anabolic every other day or so instead of every day, or 3 on 2 off, things like that. The hormones work on your muscles no matter what the circumstances.

Didn't you know that if you inject a sedentary man with testosterone he will put on more than 6 lbs of muscle in two months without working out at all? Hormones are powerful, and are not a local phenomenon. Because of this, you can't rule out the possibility that there was no difference because hormonal elevation caused growth in both arms.

[Neal Winkler]

Well, I know that MPS is upregulated for 48 hours after which it returns to baseline. In what ways does growth continue after this?

Also, isn't injecting someone with T different than post-exercise elevations which return to baseline after about 30 minutes?

[Joshua Naterman]

Injecting T is much more powerful, but the same rule applies. The muscles grow with T injections whether you exercise them or not. So, while it may not be the case, it is perfectly reasonable to say that it is POSSIBLE that the hormones from the HH day influenced the growth of the muscles that were worked on the LH day, even though the increased MPS from direct stimulation had faded.

To what degree this may have happened is unknown, but it is a confounding variable that should be removed. That said, Eunuchs build muscle when working out too. I don't think that hormones are the primary factor in growth due to direct exercise, but I'm pretty sure I'm safe when I say that they exert some influence.

Also, there is a second factor at work that is being glossed over. When you work one side of the body, the other side grows to some extent as well, even with no stimulation. This has been well documented and is why doctors recommend you work out your good side while recovering from a unilateral injury. It helps keep the injured side from losing so much muscle and strength during off time and greatly decreases the time needed to return to pre-injury performance levels.