Strength vs Size

[Rampage]

So can a gymnast have a lot of strength, but be a stick at the same time? Can you be incredibly strong, but have no muscle at the same time? Or does strength inevitably gives size?

[Gregor]

Look at the two diffrent types of rings specialist: Gelder Balandin

One is strong and bulky, other is strong and prety much skiny. Of course you must consider also weihght:strength:height ratio

[Neal Winkler]

Sometimes getting stronger pound for pound means gaining weight. It all depends.

Read this article:

http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/rel ... hmyth.html

[AlexX]

I think it all depends on your body type first and second if you are actively trying to obtain a certain look. I remember a long time ago coach wrote that Jason Gatson trained the same exact way as his team mate yet he looked like a bodybuilder and his team mate was a fairly thin gymnast. (Both I believe were at the similar level of skill/strength).

So in my opinion if you want to obtain a certain look aesthetically speaking you need to start playing around with your diet a lot more and obviously concentrate on getting as strong as possible. Jim from beastskills.com is fairly bulky for his height. On one hand you can say its from lifting weights (he lifts weights with bodyweight skills) but I believe it is more because he puts a lot of work into his diet and concentrates on gaining weight.

- this guy looks like a bodybuilder, one of the thickest handbalancers I have ever seen.

[Richard Duelley]

Encho Keryazov (see youtube link above) is one of my physique and skill idols. He is jacked but still has a amazing relative bodyweight strength and is also quite flexible.

[Jeffrey]

Its not mutually exlcusive but strength is a highly neural phenomenon. Its teaches your body to use it as effective as possible. So for example a small oly lifter could easily snatch more than a jacked up lumberjack because his body is more efficient at recruting the muscle for the task. But a larger but equally skilled oly lifter could lift more. So its not that simple. There are many mechanisms at work here.

[Gregor]

Its not mutually exlcusive but strength is a highly neural phenomenon. Its teaches your body to use it as effective as possible. So for example a small oly lifter could easily snatch more than a jacked up lumberjack because his body is more efficient at recruting the muscle for the task. But a larger but equally skilled oly lifter could lift more. So its not that simple. There are many mechanisms at work here.

Also one oly lifter is better in heavier category then in lighter and other oly lifter can be more sucsessful in heavier category more then in lighter. Also here plays big role in genetics on how easy can one get muscle mass.

[Rampage]

I think it all depends on your body type first and second if you are actively trying to obtain a certain look. I remember a long time ago coach wrote that Jason Gatson trained the same exact way as his team mate yet he looked like a bodybuilder and his team mate was a fairly thin gymnast. (Both I believe were at the similar level of skill/strength).

So in my opinion if you want to obtain a certain look aesthetically speaking you need to start playing around with your diet a lot more and obviously concentrate on getting as strong as possible. Jim from beastskills.com is fairly bulky for his height. On one hand you can say its from lifting weights (he lifts weights with bodyweight skills) but I believe it is more because he puts a lot of work into his diet and concentrates on gaining weight.

- this guy looks like a bodybuilder, one of the thickest handbalancers I have ever seen.

Yeah.

Btw, that guy in the video is incredibly ripped, is that all he does?

Jim from BS has more mass/fat than actual defined muscle, like for example Hitman from youtube: he would be an example of very defined or "ripped".

[Rampage]

Oh yeah and, the strength that you get from the various gymnastic exercises, would it be a strength that you could use if e.g. you were to wrestle with/push against someone bigger and heavier than you?

[Patrick McDonnell]

Oh yeah and, the strength that you get from the various gymnastic exercises, would it be a strength that you could use if e.g. you were to wrestle with/push against someone bigger and heavier than you?

I wrestled for many years and coach on the youth level. From what I can see of Coach's kids, as a general proposition, gymnasts are much stronger, pound for pound, than wrestlers and the strength would translate well into wrestling, provided that the kid was interested in wrestling.

But wrestling is very skill based. A very technically sound wrestler will beat a much stronger opponent. If you think of the obvious, a good wrestler will use his opponent's strength against him. If you push against a weaker but technically proficient wrestler, he will simply use your momentum to pull you to the ground. You push, he pulls. You pull, he will push.

As to someone bigger, mass is different than strength. That's why there are weight classes. Bigger is different than stronger. It is harder to beat a heavier man than a stronger man of your weight. Ten percent weight difference is one thing, but once you move above that difference, a heavier guy can take a stronger smaller guy off his base; and you just can't move that type of mass. There is usually a speed differential that comes with being smaller and stronger, but its like car racing, cubic inches matter in wrestling. And there are always the freaks that can beat someone much bigger, particularly in the heavyweight class

Absent specific training, a gymnast would do about as well in a wrestling tournament of elite wrestlers, as a wrestler would do in a gymnastics tournament of elite gymnasts. They are much different skills even though they both require functional strength. Also, unlike gymnastics, which does favor a certain body type, a lean tall wrestler can excel. The same leverage disadvantage a tall guy has in pull ups or other exercises can be used as an advantage is forcing a shorter opponent to overextend. It is very difficult to close distance on a taller man of equal weight; and they can use longer arms and legs to tie you up on the ground. But the taller wrestler does have to adapt to a wrestling style that matches his build.

[Neal Winkler]

kopride,

I did wrestling for a little bit, so your wrestling experience certainly exceeds mine. However, I have done BJJ for a number of years so I have faced plenty of wrestlers in that time. Without exception, former wrestlers are the strongest people to grapple. I have never had the opportunity to go against a gymnast.

I was wondering if you have ever grappled against a gymnast, and if so, how did he compare to the strength of wrestlers?

It seems to me, based on the S.A.I.D principle, that a gymnasts grappling strength could not exceed that of a wrestler. Although, part of the reason I have chosen to follow gymnastics is my hypothesis that short of wrestling itself, gymnastics is the best form of strength training for grappling arts.

[Ryan Libke]

Interestingly enough, I am aware of several sources that advocate bodyweight and gymnastic style excercises to compliment grappling sports or endeavors. For instance, in the "Russian Wrestling" warm-up DVD, the coaches use tumbling and other gymnastic style exercises, and I have seen some similar exercises used for Sambo/Sombo, and in several texts concerning wrestling, such as Grecco-Roman wrestling. Also, in BJJ, there are several practitioners who do various bodyweight/tumbling moves as a form of cross-training. When it comes to grappling sports, as the above post reflects, it is not only the ability to move ones opponent, but also move oneself relative to the opponent.

My experience in BJJ, while not considerable, would definitely lead me to agree that wrestlers are indeed very strong for their weight, and most college wrestlers are very athletic individuals. Not only are they strong, but they know how to apply their strength very effectively.

My personal sense is that there is considerable carry-over strength from gymnastic style strength training, such as is discussed in this forum, to grappling sports, when you must contend with a dynamic mass extrinsic to your own person. Learning how to apply that strength, and adapting the body to apply that strength specifically to that purpose, can only be done by training that sport or activity. The main difference that I see is that there should be an ability to be strong inbetween the ground and the opponent, such as by driving through for a takedown, executing a throw, sweeping, etc.

[Neal Winkler]

My personal sense is that there is considerable carry-over strength from gymnastic style strength training, such as is discussed in this forum, to grappling sports, when you must contend with a dynamic mass extrinsic to your own person.

This hits on it big time, IMO. One might be quick to assume that because an opponent is extrinsic to you, that weights would be better for grappling. However, as has been discussed on this forum, gymnastics imparts extrinsic weight strength to an equal or almost equal degree as that of external weight training itself (for the upper body). So, this will not be an issue. Where gymnastics has its advantage is in the DYNAMIC. As you said, WwoE, an opponent is dynamic. Controlling your own body in the ways that we do requires more dynamic feedback compared to free weights. Yes, free weights do take an element of control, but not compared to the control of your own body.

If there is anything which pushes gymnastics ahead of free weights for grappling, this will be one reason (another possible reason is developing strength at non-traditional angles).

Whether or not these differences make an actual impact, I cannot be sure at this point. At the very least, gymnastics and weight training will be equally good. At most, gymnastics wins out. I do not see a scenario that is more favorable for weights.

[Ryan Libke]

To me, whether it is gymnastics, which I am less familiar, or the martial art or martial sports, size and appearance is never a great predictor of ability or performance. Whether the person trains with weights exclusively or bodyweight exclusively, their own particular build might not directly relate to how they can use their muscles or how well their muscles work. There some people whose build is a badge of their strength, God-given or developed, while others, who might appear slight, nevertheless have steel-like motors under their skin.

At least for myself, I have found that I can't get real big, but I am happy developing greater strength, which seems to be increasing without much more mass, and despite having done strength training for many years, in one form or another.

[Patrick McDonnell]

This hits on it big time, IMO. One might be quick to assume that because an opponent is extrinsic to you, that weights would be better for grappling. However, as has been discussed on this forum, gymnastics imparts extrinsic weight strength to an equal or almost equal degree as that of external weight training itself (for the upper body). So, this will not be an issue. Where gymnastics has its advantage is in the DYNAMIC. As you said, WwoE, an opponent is dynamic. Controlling your own body in the ways that we do requires more dynamic feedback compared to free weights. Yes, free weights do take an element of control, but not compared to the control of your own body.

If there is anything which pushes gymnastics ahead of free weights for grappling, this will be one reason (another possible reason is developing strength at non-traditional angles).

No question that gymnastics exercises have better carryover for wrestling than just weightlifting; and that elite wrestlers are crazy strong when it comes to grappling. BTW, offensive lineman are crazy strong when it comes to playing line. They have spent 20 or so years learning to explode off the line on the count. There is a tremendous amount of specificity when it comes to grappling sports. Look at Royce Gracie, he was certainly no he-man even in his prime and never had a perfect physique. I don't think that Royce could ever complete a basic gymnastics routine based upon his grappling background. But, if you rolled with Royce in his prime or any D1 wrestler, you will see that they are very strong.

Gymnasts, however, are freakishly strong pound for pound. It's a whole different level of strength. I would imagine that wrestling would be fantastic conditioning for wrestling--better than almost anything else on the planet--except for wrestling.

What people don't understand about the very elite wrestler is that they all are almost perfectly technically, so assuming that they all have the 99% of what makes a great wrestler, which is that they intuitively know every move and counter, execution makes the difference. So a guy like BJ Penn or GSP will work on crazy conditioning and even incorporate gymnastics type training because execution becomes the difference. Something that will make them stronger or faster is huge. On the non-elite level (HS and youth), its usually the difference in technique.

The other factor is personality type. In order to be a good wrestler, you have to like spending hours on the mat wrestling and drilling. Competion is much more intimate and personal. When you lose, it is a complete defeat--not someone beat you by a judges score. Gymnastics is a very personal battle with yourself (from what I can see). They are both crazy hard individual sports, but there are some kids that love wrestling, and others don't want to have anything to do with it, the first time that their head is shoved into the mat and they are completely dominated by a better wrestler. I'm not sure that a wrestling type personality would enjoy spending hours perfecting a move; and I'm not sure that a gymnast would enjoy being slammed.

[Blairbob]

Some of my gymnasts, being young boys, love being thrown around and wrestling. If I let them, I'm sure we'd have matches amongst themselves or versus me until workout time was over or they were too tired. Now, not all of them are like this or have been like this, but given the chance I'd say a 1/3rd to 1/2 of them love it; especially to establish the pecking order.

[Zac Rhyne]

Quote.

[Guest]

Great discussion, I've enjoyed reading this. I as someone who has done BJJ for about 6 years I often ask myself what kind of strength training carries over best to grappling. I would agree what the other folks have said about wrestlers, they are often the strongest, fastest, most aggressive guys on the mat when they switch to BJJ. I think alot of it is the nature of the sport, from what I know about wrestling its go, go, go, basically trying to impose your will and dominate your opponent. Whereas I think BJJ can accommodate a wider variety of games, you see guys that are totally relaxed, not very athletic, just all technique and timing.

I think alot of it is just spending more time on the mat. The best guys in my school roll all the time, and dont necessarily do alot of outside conditioning. Some of them do, but its not anything structured or regimented. In the past I spent some time improving barbell strength, getting to a 315 squat, 400 deadlist, and 150 strict press, at a BW of 185. Sure, not impressive numbers, but decent for me, and better numbers that alot of guys at my BJJ school can put up. It was nice to get stronger, but i didnt feel it helped much grappling. My performance to me was more or less the same.

Right now I am doing two strength training sessions a week, following the GB progressions for the upper body and core, and squatting and deadlifting once a week for the lower body. I am trying to get all of my conditioning from grappling, though occasionally i will throw in the odd conditioning workout.

We'll see how it goes, right now i am enjoying learning to manipulate my body in different ways.

Anton Emery

[tyciol]

Can you be incredibly strong, but have no muscle at the same time?

Of course.

Humour aside, one can make one's motor skills very efficient to generate optimal force with limited tissue, but there are limits even to that. I think a lot of it is specificity, like not building huge legs if you're trying to get optimal arm:bodyweight ratio, or not training for high rep endurance if you're trying to get maximum 1-5 rep strength.

[Ectomorph]

Smaller people can easily be significantly stronger than bigger people and I'll explain why. The force of muscle contraction is affected by 4 things. First - the number of muscle fibers stimulated. Intense training trains your body to use the muscles most efficiently, strengthening the nervous system, and innervation of the muscle fibers. The more muscle fibers that are innervated, the stronger the contraction is going to be. Training in these exercises enhances this mechanism of the nervous system. In short, your body optimally recruits muscles better than another person's body would. Second - Size of the muscle fibers. Size defenitly matters, and is an advantage in overall strength, the larger the muscle, the bigger the muscle fibers, the more tension it can develop, the greater its strength. Third - Frequency of stimulation. This may not pertain so much to gymnastics as it does to the physiology of muscle contraction but the faster and stronger the stimulus, the quicker and harder the contraction will be. Fourth - The degree of muscle stretch. There are ideal leng-tension relationships in muscles that provide the most power in specific positions, taking advantage of this and knowing the most advantageous ways to do an exercise will also add to strength.

To sum it up, a smaller person can be stronger than a bigger person through muscle functionality. A guy who can bench press twice his weight likely cant do a full planche, but a guy who can do a full planche can probably bench press twice their weight.

[Joshua Naterman]

Your third point is a bit mis-stated. Frequency is not speed. What you are describing is rate of force development, which is something of a subset of your first point regarding the neurology involved.

Also, as far as muscle fiber size goes, bigger is not always better. There is an ideal size. Beyond a certain volume the transfer of energy substrates and metabolites into and out of the cell is no longer ideal because of the quadratic relationship between cross-sectional area and volume, which basically means that there are more metabolic reactions happening inside of the muscle than there are receptor sites on the cell membrane to support the reactions via material transfer. This is believed to be a part of why muscle hyperplasia occurs.

Speaking of which, the number of muscle fibers is often more important than the size of each. Look at climbing ropes. If you have two half inch ropes and one has 2000 fibers inside while the other has 5000 fibers, the 5000 fiber rope will have a significantly higher tensile strength. It makes sense that the same thing happens inside muscles, especially when you consider that most of the bulk of a muscle is water stored with glycogen. More muscle fibers will mean more actin-myosin chain interaction at any given CSA. That should mean that the muscle with more fibers should be able to produce more force. Again, that is highly theoretical as there is not really any way to test this as of now. This idea is simply supported by what we know about physics as of right now. There could be something else going on, as we regularly find out there is.

Length-tension relationships are also somewhat unorthodox, they sound like it means that there is a certain amount of ideal tension at a given length, but that is not so. What it means, and this is purely theoretical because this is very difficult to test in a causal manner, is that there is an ideal amount of overlap between myofilaments within the muscle fibers. You can think of this like velcro. If the muscle is stretched outside of the ideal range, which seems to be somewhere around the second 25-35% of motion (but this can be different, it depends on the motion arms and specific muscles involved), there is no longer enough velcro to support the rated weight capacity. As a kind of example, industrial velcro is often rated for 1000 lbs load, but you have to have a certain minimum of overlap for that to be the case. No matter how much MORE overlap you have there is no greater load capacity because the actual dimensions of the velcro itself do create a physical limitation to what it can hold, just like a muscle. Up to a certain degree of stretch, a muscle can hold its maximal capacity. After that there is no longer enough myofilament overlap, so even if the CSA of a muscle would dictate that it can hold 100 lbs or whatever, at a certain point that is no longer true because there is just not enough velcro stuck together anymore. We no longer have that minimum overlap so maximum force can no longer be produced. This helps explain why stretch-induced hyperplasia happens, according to current theories. If the body stays in a position where it can not produce maximum force, it stands to reason that the ideal adaptation is to split muscle fibers (which we know happens) so that there are more in a row. This allows each individual fiber to go through a smaller range of stretch in a given movement, which should produce the ability to produce higher forces in a stretched range of motion. This would also explain part of why gymnasts are able to hold the positions they can hold while a weightlifter of similar strength levels may not be able to, like the case of the double body weight bench press and the planche or maltese, as well as iron cross. These are all in a much more stretched range or motion and it would take time for the muscles to make the appropriate physical adaptations to produce more force in this range. Of course there are connective tissue issues as well but that's not what this post is about.

There is also a phenomenon with the muscles to where the myofilaments seem to have LESS contractile ability beyond a certain amount of overlap. No one is sure why that is, but it does seem to be so. It could simply be a lack of bearing load in that range of motion, but I believe this has been tested in vitro, which should eliminate the neurological aspect of that force production issue if that's all it is. Of course, our muscles never contract completely so that isn't really relevant to human movement.

I know you probably knew most of that, but I figured I would put the info up for those who are less knowledgeable about this subject. Please keep in mind that most of this is based on theory that is in turn based largely on extrapolations of experiments and not causal data. Science doesn't actually have any idea how muscles work.

EDIT: Finally, on a relative scale smaller people can always achieve higher multiples of bodyweight, in general, due to the way physics works. On an absolute scale, bigger people are always stronger. There's a reason why you only see giants bench pressing 700 lbs raw, for example, or deadlifting 1000 lbs. Again, there are always physics involved here, but compare the records of the 120-150 lb weight classes, where you tend to find the highest relative strength, with the super heavyweights. Absolutely no comparison in weight moved, the heavyweights move hundreds of lbs more in just about every lift, but the multiples of BW are very different.

In the end, this boils down to one statement: Smaller people will always have an advantage in manipulating their own bodyweight, but bigger people will always have an advantage manipulating external loads. There will always be some outliers, but that is the status quo.

[Felipe]

This is the simplest way to answer the question (if someone can be skinny SUPER HOT and powerful)

B9RVr0HVkCg

[Joshua Naterman]

You meant super hot and powerful, right?

[Razz]

You meant super hot and powerful, right?

omg +1 :shock:

[Blairbob]

I will definitely have to get off my kick for gymnasts and ballerinas and yoginis and start dating some olympic lifters.

Oh wait, that was my secret motive behind wanting to compete in Oly. It's out now. Shhhh.