Doing Pullups

Training
61

[quote]Dark_Knight wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Dark_Knight wrote:
Yup. And you can’t take things out of context. If one is arguing that pullups (or any movement, for that matter) should be done slowly for “perfect” form, does that mean that speed reps are imperfect and inferior? Maybe people should always make sure to hang for a full 4 seconds at the bottom to dissipate elastic energy.
[/quote]

Yes, speed reps would be imperfect.[/quote]

According to your standard.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Dark_Knight wrote:
And we’re all put together differently, so what is full ROM to one is not full ROM to another.
[/quote]

No, not really. Yes, some people have longer or shorter limbs, longer or shorter torsos, and thicker or thinner body parts, but that doesn’t change what constitutes full ROM.[/quote]

Yes it does. To use an example that’s in the forefront of my mind, I can’t do overhead pressing with the ROM as other guys. Even an unloaded movement I CAN’T do to the same range of motion as other guys doing overhead presses with hundreds of pounds. What is a full ROM for me is different. This may or may not ever change. That’s just one example. I’ve read of lots of other kinds of things like this, from both people experiencing it, as well as strength coaches (some on this site) noting how a full ROM can differ in people.
[/quote]

That’s like me saying “I can’t squat to parallel with good form, my hips aren’t flexible enough and I don’t want to do the necessary mobility work to change that, so Full ROM for me means a quarter squat”. Sorry, but that’s a lame excuse and in fact brings up an even a MORE relevant point to support my position and that is injury prevention and longevity.

If you lack the ability to perform overhead pressing (or pull-ups, squats, or any other exercise), then that should be a red flag to you that you have some biomechanical issues that you should be seeking to iron out, and in the meantime, you may want to skip that exercise altogether. You definitely don’t want to be loading it with hundreds of pounds.

Different acromion shapes don’t necessarily inhibit full overhead ROM, but they do make performing overhead pressing potentially dangerous. Although, I don’t know how common such Acromions actually are, or how truly limiting they are as I’ve yet to hear of a competitive gymnast who couldn’t ever achieve a correct handstand position with the correct mobility and shoulder preparation work, and there is a large enough population to draw from that I would have expected to hear of at least some if this were truly that big of an issue. More than likely it is either a lack of proper mobility or preparation work on the part of the athlete or lack of knowledge about such things on the coaches side that leads to most shoulder injuries. I’m not saying that this couldn’t be an issue, just that I think people are too quick to justify their unwillingness to actually put in the time to fix their mobility on supposed physiological limitations (when in most case they have not received any concrete proof of such a condition).

Again, my response would be “well then maybe they should fix their ankle mobility do that they can squat ATG.” Those excuses are just lame and lazy. In the meantime if they need to use an abbreviated ROM, then fine, but their goal should be to at least gain the ability to do so correctly.

To a degree yes, but first we are talking about pull-ups, and I’ve yet to ever, ever meet or see a healthy individual (with all limbs attached), who was incapable of performing full ROM pull-ups. And even if we are talking about squats, anyone should be at least capable of squatting down to the point where their hamstrings and calves meet and their quads meet their abdomen safely. Will the exact distance be different between individuals? Yes. Does that mean that full ROM means a different thing for them? Well yes in the absolute sense of the word, but no in the relative sense of the word.

People are put together differently. People have different degrees of mobility, some of which is due to things that are genetically determined and cannot be changed (such as the acromion process shape). These factors affect ROM. There is not a universal full ROM that can be categorically applied to every person.
[/quote]

Yes, yes there is and can. All powerlifting federations do so. All Olympic lifting does so. All gymnastics competitions do so. All strongman competitions do so.

The fact that you are arguing so strongly against my point leads me to believe that this topic hits home with you and reflects your not wanting to take responsibility for your lack of mobility and instead wanting to take the easy way out and blame it on genetics or some unforeseen limitation. I sincerely hope that, even if you still don’t agree with me, that my post(s) have at least made you stop and think about your current situation and will cause you to go out and seek the information you need to fix your problem.

62

[quote]get_ate wrote:
This shit is silly to me that people are actually arguing AGAINST making an exercise difficult.

Really?
[/quote]

No, not really. Nobody’s arguing against making an exercise difficult.

63

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

That’s like me saying “I can’t squat to parallel with good form, my hips aren’t flexible enough and I don’t want to do the necessary mobility work to change that, so Full ROM for me means a quarter squat”. Sorry, but that’s a lame excuse and in fact brings up an even a MORE relevant point to support my position and that is injury prevention and longevity.[/quote]

You inserted a lot of judgmental assumptions in there, and it’s missing my point.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Yes, yes there is and can. All powerlifting federations do so. All Olympic lifting does so. All gymnastics competitions do so. All strongman competitions do so. [/quote]

And these standards can differ from organization to organization, and these organizations can have a certain range of what is and what is not acceptable. And I’m not talking strictly about competitive athletes, either. I’m talking more about the general population.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
The fact that you are arguing so strongly against my point leads me to believe that this topic hits home with you and reflects your not wanting to take responsibility for your lack of mobility and instead wanting to take the easy way out and blame it on genetics or some unforeseen limitation. [/quote]

Don’t try to psychoanalyze me. You don’t know me, and you’re so far off here. I wasn’t even arguing that “strongly.”

64

I don’t understand.

How do you make a judgment of what your body is capable/incapable of when it comes to lifting form?

I can’t overhead squat. When I try my back feel like they’re going to break. Does that mean I cannot overhead squat? Maybe, but it’s more likely that I simply lack the flexibility to do it. A couple of weeks ago I couldn’t even begin to overhead squat. Now I can overhead squat on a tall box.

When I first tried to squat, I just fell on my butt. Does that mean that I can’t squat? Doubtful, since I can now squat with perfect form if I have a weight to counterbalance me. It did take about 3-4 months of frequent and continual stretches to get me that flexibility though.

How did you determine that you cannot OHP with proper ROM? What part are you incapable of? Putting your arms locked up above your head? Did you get yourself checked out by an actual, knowledgeable physical therapist who understand body mechanics? Or did you come by that determination simply through your own analysis?

65

[quote]get_ate wrote:
…and how many of you have backs (or will EVER) like Kroc?

This shit is silly to me that people are actually arguing AGAINST making an exercise difficult.

Really?

What the fuck kind of world am I living in where people bench 1/9th of the way down, squat 1/6th of the depth, curl by jerking their entire body, or do pull-ups where they aren’t even pulling themselves up.

Fuck that.

I was taught that if the exercise is too easy, then you’re doing it wrong…

No one is going to talk me into believing that easiness is the way to go.[/quote]

LOL no one has a back like Kroc… and since the dude rows 300+lb dumbells for reps IMO he’s exempt from doing perfect pullups

66

[quote]get_ate wrote:
…and how many of you have backs (or will EVER) like Kroc?

This shit is silly to me that people are actually arguing AGAINST making an exercise difficult.

Really?

What the fuck kind of world am I living in where people bench 1/9th of the way down, squat 1/6th of the depth, curl by jerking their entire body, or do pull-ups where they aren’t even pulling themselves up.

Fuck that.

I was taught that if the exercise is too easy, then you’re doing it wrong…

No one is going to talk me into believing that easiness is the way to go.[/quote]

Isn’t the point that nobody has a back that looks like Kroc’s? Thus, if you want to have an awesome back, do what he does. Obviously, there’s two conflicting schools of thought:

A: Unless you’re an elite strength athlete, you won’t get good results working out like one.

B: If you want to be an elite strength athlete, you should work out like one.

The right answer is somewhere in the middle. I think that’s the right answer for pull-ups, too.

67

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]get_ate wrote:
…and how many of you have backs (or will EVER) like Kroc?

This shit is silly to me that people are actually arguing AGAINST making an exercise difficult.

Really?

What the fuck kind of world am I living in where people bench 1/9th of the way down, squat 1/6th of the depth, curl by jerking their entire body, or do pull-ups where they aren’t even pulling themselves up.

Fuck that.

I was taught that if the exercise is too easy, then you’re doing it wrong…

No one is going to talk me into believing that easiness is the way to go.[/quote]

Isn’t the point that nobody has a back that looks like Kroc’s? Thus, if you want to have an awesome back, do what he does. Obviously, there’s two conflicting schools of thought:

A: Unless you’re an elite strength athlete, you won’t get good results working out like one.

B: If you want to be an elite strength athlete, you should work out like one.

The right answer is somewhere in the middle. I think that’s the right answer for pull-ups, too.[/quote]

Basically, do what works best for you, but keep in mind that is going to change with time.

68

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]get_ate wrote:
…and how many of you have backs (or will EVER) like Kroc?

This shit is silly to me that people are actually arguing AGAINST making an exercise difficult.

Really?

What the fuck kind of world am I living in where people bench 1/9th of the way down, squat 1/6th of the depth, curl by jerking their entire body, or do pull-ups where they aren’t even pulling themselves up.

Fuck that.

I was taught that if the exercise is too easy, then you’re doing it wrong…

No one is going to talk me into believing that easiness is the way to go.[/quote]

Isn’t the point that nobody has a back that looks like Kroc’s? Thus, if you want to have an awesome back, do what he does. Obviously, there’s two conflicting schools of thought:

A: Unless you’re an elite strength athlete, you won’t get good results working out like one.

B: If you want to be an elite strength athlete, you should work out like one.

The right answer is somewhere in the middle. I think that’s the right answer for pull-ups, too.[/quote]

If you think Matt Kroc got a back like that because of the way he does pullups you’re very mistaken

69

[quote]Silyak wrote:
Isn’t the point that nobody has a back that looks like Kroc’s? Thus, if you want to have an awesome back, do what he does. Obviously, there’s two conflicting schools of thought:

A: Unless you’re an elite strength athlete, you won’t get good results working out like one.

B: If you want to be an elite strength athlete, you should work out like one.

The right answer is somewhere in the middle. I think that’s the right answer for pull-ups, too.[/quote]

Didn’t Matt Kroc get his monster back from doing the established “do this and not that” so damned well that he had to invent his own thing to continue improving?

He got to where he is by following what all the strength coaches/etc before him said, then getting to the point where he had to invent new things because no one else got to where he was or didn’t provide knowledge about it.

In other words, the only people who should do what Kroc does is Kroc.

70

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]get_ate wrote:
…and how many of you have backs (or will EVER) like Kroc?

This shit is silly to me that people are actually arguing AGAINST making an exercise difficult.

Really?

What the fuck kind of world am I living in where people bench 1/9th of the way down, squat 1/6th of the depth, curl by jerking their entire body, or do pull-ups where they aren’t even pulling themselves up.

Fuck that.

I was taught that if the exercise is too easy, then you’re doing it wrong…

No one is going to talk me into believing that easiness is the way to go.[/quote]

Isn’t the point that nobody has a back that looks like Kroc’s? Thus, if you want to have an awesome back, do what he does. Obviously, there’s two conflicting schools of thought:

A: Unless you’re an elite strength athlete, you won’t get good results working out like one.

B: If you want to be an elite strength athlete, you should work out like one.

The right answer is somewhere in the middle. I think that’s the right answer for pull-ups, too.[/quote]

If you think Matt Kroc got a back like that because of the way he does pullups you’re very mistaken[/quote]

So then it comes down to the overall program and not just the specific exercise technique.

The partial ROM pull ups fit into Kroc’s program and do NOT make the program easier – keep in mind that he is doing high reps so even though the exercise is technically “easier” does not mean that the program is at all easier. You guys try high rep pull ups in addition to your deadlift/row/etc training and tell me that it’s easy.

71

[quote]anthropocentric wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]get_ate wrote:
…and how many of you have backs (or will EVER) like Kroc?

This shit is silly to me that people are actually arguing AGAINST making an exercise difficult.

Really?

What the fuck kind of world am I living in where people bench 1/9th of the way down, squat 1/6th of the depth, curl by jerking their entire body, or do pull-ups where they aren’t even pulling themselves up.

Fuck that.

I was taught that if the exercise is too easy, then you’re doing it wrong…

No one is going to talk me into believing that easiness is the way to go.[/quote]

Isn’t the point that nobody has a back that looks like Kroc’s? Thus, if you want to have an awesome back, do what he does. Obviously, there’s two conflicting schools of thought:

A: Unless you’re an elite strength athlete, you won’t get good results working out like one.

B: If you want to be an elite strength athlete, you should work out like one.

The right answer is somewhere in the middle. I think that’s the right answer for pull-ups, too.[/quote]

If you think Matt Kroc got a back like that because of the way he does pullups you’re very mistaken[/quote]

So then it comes down to the overall program and not just the specific exercise technique.

The partial ROM pull ups fit into Kroc’s program and do NOT make the program easier – keep in mind that he is doing high reps so even though the exercise is technically “easier” does not mean that the program is at all easier. You guys try high rep pull ups in addition to your deadlift/row/etc training and tell me that it’s easy. [/quote]
I think the way Kroc does dumbell rows contributed to his lat and mid back development far more than pullups did, the numbers he boasts (300+lbs for reps) indicate he put in a SHIT TON of difficult work

72

The point is to understand the ways in which pull ups add value to the overall program, not a discussion on how Kroc built his back.

73

[quote]anthropocentric wrote:
The point is to understand the ways in which pull ups add value to the overall program, not a discussion on how Kroc built his back. [/quote]

Fair enough. However Kroc rows were a cornerstone to his routine for some time, he talked a bit about why this was the case in an interview once. The point is pullups might not be as big a part of his training as you’d expect, he definitely hasnt devoted as much effort to progressing with them

74

[quote]anthropocentric wrote:
Since the people arguing for perfect dead hang pull ups have also agreed that people have different goals, then the meaning of perfect is different for different people.
[/quote]

Not really. But I understand what you are trying to say, and yes, it is essentially just an argument over semantics.

Perfect reps of any exercise would involve a full ROM, no momentum, and no form breakdown. You could then name pull-up variations other things.

Take bench press for example:
-a perfect bench press rep would involve going from locked elbows, lowering the bar under control all the way until it touches the chest, a slight pause, then pressing back to lockout while maintaining contact with the butt on the seat and feet on the floor
-if we place 2 boards on the chest to decrease the ROM, that’s called a “2 board press”
-3 boards on the chest makes it a “3 board press”
-pressing off pins in the rack makes it a “Pin press”
-stopping just short of the chest and just short of lockout makes it a “constant tension bench press”
-only going from the chest up to 1/2-2/3 of the way up results in a “bottom half bench”
-and the list can go on

By your logic, we should just call all of those a “bench press” since people using them might have different goals.

Well, first, top bodybuilders and Kroc don’t really care about having great pull-up strength or numbers for any other reason than the fact that it’s an exercise to work specific back muscles. So, for their purposes, they might feel that pull-up variations other than perfect pull-ups help them achieve those goals best. Again, no one is arguing with this concept.

But, you can’t call a shrug a deadlift just because you feel it works your traps better than deadlifts.

[quote
Dead hang 2-4 second pause is cool and all, but just take a look at the empirical evidence here. [/quote]

Empirical evidence of what though? Lots of bodybuilders have bigger legs than Olympic lifters, does that not make shorter ROM squats ATG squats.

75

Exactly what constitutes a pull-up is definitely a matter of opinion. That’s really the case with any exercise that doesn’t have a competition standard. That doesn’t mean anything can be a pull-up, but there is certainly a range. Any non-competition lift should be programmed in order to achieve results (either physique or performance). The question then becomes, “Are perfect dead-hang pull-ups with a 2-4 second pause at the bottom the best exercise to achieve the results I want?” I don’t think that the answer is yes for every person so I don’t think it makes much sense to get stuck-up about pull-up form.

The fact is, some lifts and movements make better competitions than others. On the one hand, you have things like loaded carries, which make a great competition. If you picked it up over here and put it down over there then you did it correctly. Then you have things like deadlifts and overhead log lifts where you can argue about whether or not the lockout was good, but if it’s held for a bit things become clear. Bench press, squats, and olympic lifts get a little grayer as there are judgments to be made about pauses, hip creases, and form, which can get hairy. In my opinion, pull-ups and push-ups are towards the hairy end of the spectrum. So many things make the movement easier or harder that it becomes difficult to make and enforce a competition standard. That said, these are still great exercises. Do them so that you get the best results.

76

So what then would the goals be of someone who is doing pull-ups if not to get stronger or bigger? Would the goal be to literally pull one’s self up? If that were the case than who would care about the arbitrary definition of form? And it is arbitrary as soon as you start to say that anthropocentric values are of no concern because it basically becomes a matter of what it printed in some manual about bench pressing.

Why is use of muscle spindles as well as visco-elasticity of muscle and connective tissue somehow cheating or incorrect form? I just don’t see the logic here. I don’t see how that would be analogous to bouncing the bar off the ground during a deadlift considering it doesn’t involve the added momentum of weight and the co-efficient of restitution of the floor. You aren’t using momentum.

NSCA isn’t even this picky about pull-up form.

77

[quote]setto222 wrote:
So what then would the goals be of someone who is doing pull-ups if not to get stronger or bigger? Would the goal be to literally pull one’s self up? If that were the case than who would care about the arbitrary definition of form? And it is arbitrary as soon as you start to say that anthropocentric values are of no concern because it basically becomes a matter of what it printed in some manual about bench pressing.

Why is use of muscle spindles as well as visco-elasticity of muscle and connective tissue somehow cheating or incorrect form? I just don’t see the logic here. I don’t see how that would be analogous to bouncing the bar off the ground during a deadlift considering it doesn’t involve the added momentum of weight and the co-efficient of restitution of the floor. You aren’t using momentum.

NSCA isn’t even this picky about pull-up form.[/quote]

The goals of getting stronger and getting bigger are not necessarily the same though, nor do the same methods best achieve both goals. A bodybuilder doesn’t really care if their form is “textbook/perfect” on any given lift, just so long as it produces the desired effect of making their muscles grow larger. So, for that specific purpose performing exercises like pull-ups with an abbreviated ROM to keep a specific muscle group under constant tension, or loading up a ton of extra weight via a dipping belt and only performing to bottom ROM might fit their needs perfectly. That still doesn’t make what they are doing “textbook/perfect pull-ups”. If they don’t care, then fine they don’t care. The only trouble arises when they (or more likely someone else) claims that what they are doing is “textbook/perfect” pull-ups, which seems to have become the crux of this thread.

If someone wants to perform Kipling pull-ups because they feel that it benefits them, then I say have at it. But don’t claim they are “strict/textbook/perfect pull-ups”. If someone wants to perform reps like Kroc because they feel they work for their goals, then more power to them, but don’t claim they are “strict/textbook/perfect” pull-ups. Hell, do whatever version of pull-ups you want, makes no difference to me, just don’t call them “strict/textbook/perfect” pull-ups unless they actually are.

Why is bouncing the bar off your chest when bench pressing (which is just making use of the elasticity of the muscles and connective tissues of the rib cage) considered cheating while benching? Because, just like doing so at the bottom of a pull-up, it allows the muscles to not have to work as hard through a given range of motion (usually it’s done at the most stretched ROM in the majority of exercises), thus it doesn’t develop or demonstrate the same level of strength as using a controlled tempo through out the entire eccentric portion and a lack of momentum/assistance from the connective tissues during the concentric phase of the lift.

And, since pull-ups are a strength exercise just like bench pressing (as opposed to a power exercise like say a vertical jump), you should be demonstrating strength throughout the entire ROM, not bouncing out of the bottom to make it easier/allow you to perform more reps.

Obviously, if you are using pull-ups for power generation your form will obviously change (just like doing clapping push-ups would be different than strict push-ups), but then you aren’t really doing “strict/textbook/perfect” pull-ups anymore.

78

i wish i had a place to do kipping pullups…my pullup bar has a bar in the middle. cand kip/swing… crossfit did a special on deadhang pullups vs kipping pullups a few years ago.they spoke about all the advantages the kip has over the deadhang…more force is generated, making you work harder, making the number of reps go higher. kinda hard to explain what all they were talking about. bottom line is the kip will increase your dead hand faster than just doing deadhangs and other back exercises. it was a great piece… the video was put on by a few coaches, and everything the said made sense…you do the kip faster , you get more reps, use more muscles, and the assistant muscles used in deadhangs… then when you do deadhangs, you can do a lot more…i searched the xfit boards and google. when i finally found it, it was deleated…sure wish i could find it…

79

I’d like to see what a “strict” snatch/clean/jerk looks like. lol

On ROM: Range definitely varies form individual to individual. Squat depth in some individuals is limited by ankle flexibility. Sure you can work flexibility and mobility to an extent, and nearly all of the population can attain a below parallel squat, going hams to calves is a different story. We can only dorsiflex so far before the shin runs into the bones of the foot. So “ATG depth” is going to very by individual. This is why it’s so painful to watch long femured individuals try to squat.

80

www.crossfit.com/cf-info/excercise.html

not the detailed video, but it shows some info…

go to crossfit exercises. its the 7th one from the bottom. strict vs kipping pullups…