Not able to watch the video at the moment, but…
[quote]spk wrote:
making you work harder, making the number of reps go higher. [/quote]
So the harder something is, the more reps of it you can do? If I’m reading this right then why is it that in every other movement the harder it is, the less reps I can do? E.g. if I squat 120 kg I get less reps than if I squat 100 kg.
Is that why you see people boasting about doing 40-50 kipping but never see a video boasting of 20+ deadhangs?
If their claim has validity, then shouldn’t there be as many videos of crosslifters doing dead-hangs as they do kipping?
[quote]DAVE101 wrote:
I’d like to see what a “strict” snatch/clean/jerk looks like. lol
[/quote]
Olympic lifts are somewhat unique in that they’re power movements (can’t really be performed correctly slowly), but are also highly strength oriented. I suppose you could say that a strict snatch/clean + jerk would simply be a correctly performed one. But, yeah, kind of a different animal than pull-ups.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
True, but
the difference between a true parallel squat and an “calves to hamstrings” squat isn’t very far for most people. Perhaps for those with very skinny legs it might be significant.
I’ve yet to see someone (who didn’t have some prior injury or medical condition like arthritis) who wouldn’t attain a calves to hamstrings squat with some time and effort. And just so we’re sure we’re talking about the same thing, I’m referring to the point where the knee joint flexes to the point where the calves come into contact with the hamstrings behind the knee. I’m not talking about the point where the butt/hamstrings sits against the ankles, which I agree not everyone can attain and takes someone who is bio mechanically built for squatting deep, just as performing extreme range back bend skills/poses requires specific genetic traits.
Again, I’ve yet to ever see someone who was somehow bio mechanically limited from achieving a dead hang pull/up. In fact, I’m having a hard time what those limitations would even look like if they did exist.
[quote]238 wrote:
Not able to watch the video at the moment, but…
[quote]spk wrote:
making you work harder, making the number of reps go higher. [/quote]
So the harder something is, the more reps of it you can do? If I’m reading this right then why is it that in every other movement the harder it is, the less reps I can do? E.g. if I squat 120 kg I get less reps than if I squat 100 kg.[/quote]
Yeah, I had the same reaction to that point.
Along the same lines, why is it that there are lots of videos of women doing their “1st pull-up” who perform a kipping pull-up, but very few of women doing a dead hang pull-up if kipping pull-ups are harder? Wouldn’t it make sense that if kipping pull-ups were indeed harder than dead hangs, that a whole lot of women would get a dead hang before getting a kipping pull-up? Just as you don’t see any videos of people getting their first pull-up performing a strict muscle-up or butterfly pull-up on rings. Why? Because those are harder variations of pull-ups, so people are going to have to achieve the easier variations first.
Another good counter example would be the fact that when you watch people do max sets of pull-ups, they all kip more the further into the set they go (as they start to fatigue and they therefore look for ways to make the exercise easier to allow them to continue going). If kipping were indeed harder, then you’d expect them to kip less the further into the set they went.
[quote]magick wrote:
Is that why you see people boasting about doing 40-50 kipping but never see a video boasting of 20+ deadhangs?
If their claim has validity, then shouldn’t there be as many videos of crosslifters doing dead-hangs as they do kipping?[/quote]
Actually, if that claim were valid, you should expect to see tons of videos of crossfitters doing 50+ dead hang sets, yet, such videos seem to be strangely nowhere to be found. You’d also expect that when you watch the crossfit games that they would perform dead hangs whenever possible, or that the deadhang set numbers would be significantly higher than the kipping set numbers. Yet again, this is not the reality.
The fact is that kipping makes pull-ups easier.
What those coaches were most likely misquoting is a quote from Coach Sommer in an old article that mentioned how he felt that performing giant swings (on rings and high bar) helped to build a significant amount of tendon, ligament, and muscle strength in his athletes and helped to improve their pull-up performance, and then extrapolating that to mean that kipping pull-ups would have the same carryover effect. Of course, this fails to realize that there are several magnitudes greater forces experienced during giant swings than kipping pull-ups. It also fails to mention that Sommer’s athletes do all types of progressively harder pull-up variations (with textbook/perfect form by the way) before he ever has them start doing giant swings; they don’t just jump on the rings or high bar on day one, start performing giants, and then “poof” they are dead hang pull-up masters.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]238 wrote:
Not able to watch the video at the moment, but…
[quote]spk wrote:
making you work harder, making the number of reps go higher. [/quote]
So the harder something is, the more reps of it you can do? If I’m reading this right then why is it that in every other movement the harder it is, the less reps I can do? E.g. if I squat 120 kg I get less reps than if I squat 100 kg.[/quote]
Yeah, I had the same reaction to that point.
Along the same lines, why is it that there are lots of videos of women doing their “1st pull-up” who perform a kipping pull-up, but very few of women doing a dead hang pull-up if kipping pull-ups are harder? Wouldn’t it make sense that if kipping pull-ups were indeed harder than dead hangs, that a whole lot of women would get a dead hang before getting a kipping pull-up? Just as you don’t see any videos of people getting their first pull-up performing a strict muscle-up or butterfly pull-up on rings. Why? Because those are harder variations of pull-ups, so people are going to have to achieve the easier variations first.
Another good counter example would be the fact that when you watch people do max sets of pull-ups, they all kip more the further into the set they go (as they start to fatigue and they therefore look for ways to make the exercise easier to allow them to continue going). If kipping were indeed harder, then you’d expect them to kip less the further into the set they went.[/quote]
Not advocating for kipping or Xfit particularly, however, in terms of WORK (as opposed to exertion): mathematically WORK = FORCE X DISTANCE. So if you must generate x amount of force to get your chin over the bar and you travel y distance in the process you will have done more total WORK if you do 30 kipping as opposed to 10 dead hang pullups as you will have travelled 3x the distance. In fact, you will have done significantly more work, as you will have generated much more force in accelerating yourself to the bar while kipping as opposed to from a dead hang.
Again, it’s the math. FORCE = MASS x ACCELERATION. So if your mass stays constant but you accelerate much faster you have generated more force. Of course, this doesn’t really tell the whole story because you have drastically changed how you are generating that force, thus making it much easier in terms of exertion. However exertion =/= work.
I still prefer dead hangs.
Edited
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
But, yeah, kind of a different animal than pull-ups.
[/quote]
Agreed, it would be better to compare pull ups to push ups as they are both bodyweight exercises that do not involve a barbell. While the bench press utilizes some similar muscles to the push up, it is overall a different animal.
People don’t tend to pause at any portion of a push up for it to be considered perfect.
Going back to the idea of doing work – consider that dead hang pull ups will allow less overall repetitions and time under tension. Again, we are keying in on certain bodybuilding principles underlying technique and benefit of exercise.
To the caveat that people shouldn’t post XX perfect pull ups on youtube, obviously there is a lot of fluff out there but that just distracts from the actual discussion IMO.
[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.
And it makes you wonder, if dead hang pull ups with no stretch reflex are absolutely perfect, then how come pretty much no one does them? Top powerlifters don’t (see Kroc’s form of pull up conditioning), top bodybuilders obviously don’t and the list goes on.
Kroc’s upper back conditioning
Dead hang 2-4 second pause is cool and all, but just take a look at the empirical evidence here. [/quote]
Isn’t there a happy medium when it comes to pullups?
I look at the kipping pullup and laugh, that’s not a pullup. It’s like a rack pull to a deadlift, something similar but not the same, nowhere near as difficult. It’s like doing pushups from your knees, maybe good transfer to Oly lifts for crossfit, but as far as I can tell a lot of crossfitters really need to work on their form.
I look at the dead hang and I wonder if it makes more sense to get off the bar inbetween pulls, set up over and over again like you would doing deadlift singles given the concepts being kicked.
I think utilizing the stretch response at the bottom, having a controlled descent so your legs don’t flail, and exploding back up is a good pullup. Basic Marine Corps, non kipping pullup. This is what works for Kroc, fellow devil dog, so why not take what we see from Kroc and implement adding weighted pullups, rather than treating the pullup like some training method for crossfit.
Pullups, and weighted pullups are the king of upper back development and should be treated as such. If you do facepulls, maybe you should do some weighted pullups before that and make your face pulls your finisher. I think the kipping pulls might be tolerable so long as you can do regular pullups and that they actually have some sort of transfer to crossfit, to me they are an abomination to the pullup, a lot of potential upper back training is being forgoed so folks can train bar movements…
When do you PULL a bar, DOWN to your chest doing cleans? I’m not really convinced there is a good motor or nervous system transfer, or to even what oly movements they are talking about. I’ll tell you this though, having a strong upper back, the sort you develop doing weighted pulls will help with deads, squats, cleans, presses, and bench.
How about treating the upper back and pullup like the strict press how Wendler does in his 531? It might be interesting to have a day dedicated to the upper back as a primary, with weighted pullups.
Just saying.
i just wish i had a place to do kipping pullups so i can do both… dead hang and kipping…i might start doing them like that kroc video. not going chin over the bar and not fully extending at the bottom. i imagine all the tension on the muscles has gotta help… then when i do my personal test late fall time, maybe i’ll hit a pr of more than 32 dead hangs…when i go to the local high school football games, the marines always have a pullup bar there with t-shirts for those who can do 20 dead hangs. chin over the bar, fully eztended at the bottom and no swinging…those are the 3 things they look at. chin over the bat, no swinging, and fully extended…
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Admittedly i was in a bad mood yesterday when I wrote that. You kept a level head and argued well. I guess the difference is that I train for fun with a side of performance and that’s about it.
Good discussion!
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]238 wrote:
Not able to watch the video at the moment, but…
[quote]spk wrote:
making you work harder, making the number of reps go higher. [/quote]
So the harder something is, the more reps of it you can do? If I’m reading this right then why is it that in every other movement the harder it is, the less reps I can do? E.g. if I squat 120 kg I get less reps than if I squat 100 kg.[/quote]
Yeah, I had the same reaction to that point.
Along the same lines, why is it that there are lots of videos of women doing their “1st pull-up” who perform a kipping pull-up, but very few of women doing a dead hang pull-up if kipping pull-ups are harder? Wouldn’t it make sense that if kipping pull-ups were indeed harder than dead hangs, that a whole lot of women would get a dead hang before getting a kipping pull-up? Just as you don’t see any videos of people getting their first pull-up performing a strict muscle-up or butterfly pull-up on rings. Why? Because those are harder variations of pull-ups, so people are going to have to achieve the easier variations first.
Another good counter example would be the fact that when you watch people do max sets of pull-ups, they all kip more the further into the set they go (as they start to fatigue and they therefore look for ways to make the exercise easier to allow them to continue going). If kipping were indeed harder, then you’d expect them to kip less the further into the set they went.[/quote]
Not advocating for kipping or Xfit particularly, however, in terms of WORK (as opposed to exertion): mathematically WORK = FORCE X DISTANCE. So if you must generate x amount of force to get your chin over the bar and you travel y distance in the process you will have done more total WORK if you do 30 kipping as opposed to 10 dead hang pullups as you will have travelled 3x the distance. In fact, you will have done significantly more work, as you will have generated much more force in accelerating yourself to the bar while kipping as opposed to from a dead hang.
Again, it’s the math. FORCE = MASS x ACCELERATION. So if your mass stays constant but you accelerate much faster you have generated more force. Of course, this doesn’t really tell the whole story because you have drastically changed how you are generating that force, thus making it much easier in terms of exertion. However exertion =/= work.
I still prefer dead hangs.
Edited[/quote]
This would be true if you kipped each rep from a dead hang. However, if you watch crossfit or most kipping pull-ups in general, they swing back up in a pendulum motion. That means that you conserve a lot of energy from the last pull-up as kinetic and potential energy that can be applied to the next pull-up. Think of a swing. Even after you stop pushing, it still comes back up most of the way. I can’t say what the math is comparing 30 xfit pull-ups to 10 dead hang strict pull-ups, but it certainly isn’t 3 to 1.
Moreover, that only accounts for the physical movements and ignores biological efficiency. Anyone who has lifted heavy weight knows that it takes a lot more out of you when you increase the resistance by a little bit. For instance a triple at 85% is more than 2.5 times the physical work of a single at your max. Which kicks your butt more? I can’t say exactly what all the factors are whether they be leverage, muscle efficiency, energy systems, or something else. But if you only look at the total work done according to physics you are missing a large portion of the picture.
One: Check out the articles on partial reps. Why is a partial reps / kipping for good everything else but not pull ups? Trick question.
Two: I don’t care what anyone says full rom pull ups are felt entirely in the shoulder joints at the low end of the reps. That is all fine and good for you young, thin, rubber people. Older joints scream at such nonsense. Stopping at 3/4 reps and then going back up frees the shoulder from any damage.
Try being 245-250 lbs and doing sets of 5, 3/4 reps pull ups and then come and talk to me. At age 49 been there doing that.
PS: Age is an excuse for laziness.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]238 wrote:
Not able to watch the video at the moment, but…
[quote]spk wrote:
making you work harder, making the number of reps go higher. [/quote]
So the harder something is, the more reps of it you can do? If I’m reading this right then why is it that in every other movement the harder it is, the less reps I can do? E.g. if I squat 120 kg I get less reps than if I squat 100 kg.[/quote]
Yeah, I had the same reaction to that point.
Along the same lines, why is it that there are lots of videos of women doing their “1st pull-up” who perform a kipping pull-up, but very few of women doing a dead hang pull-up if kipping pull-ups are harder? Wouldn’t it make sense that if kipping pull-ups were indeed harder than dead hangs, that a whole lot of women would get a dead hang before getting a kipping pull-up? Just as you don’t see any videos of people getting their first pull-up performing a strict muscle-up or butterfly pull-up on rings. Why? Because those are harder variations of pull-ups, so people are going to have to achieve the easier variations first.
Another good counter example would be the fact that when you watch people do max sets of pull-ups, they all kip more the further into the set they go (as they start to fatigue and they therefore look for ways to make the exercise easier to allow them to continue going). If kipping were indeed harder, then you’d expect them to kip less the further into the set they went.[/quote]
Not advocating for kipping or Xfit particularly, however, in terms of WORK (as opposed to exertion): mathematically WORK = FORCE X DISTANCE. So if you must generate x amount of force to get your chin over the bar and you travel y distance in the process you will have done more total WORK if you do 30 kipping as opposed to 10 dead hang pullups as you will have travelled 3x the distance. In fact, you will have done significantly more work, as you will have generated much more force in accelerating yourself to the bar while kipping as opposed to from a dead hang.
Again, it’s the math. FORCE = MASS x ACCELERATION. So if your mass stays constant but you accelerate much faster you have generated more force. Of course, this doesn’t really tell the whole story because you have drastically changed how you are generating that force, thus making it much easier in terms of exertion. However exertion =/= work.
I still prefer dead hangs.
Edited[/quote]
This would be true if you kipped each rep from a dead hang. However, if you watch crossfit or most kipping pull-ups in general, they swing back up in a pendulum motion. That means that you conserve a lot of energy from the last pull-up as kinetic and potential energy that can be applied to the next pull-up. Think of a swing. Even after you stop pushing, it still comes back up most of the way. I can’t say what the math is comparing 30 xfit pull-ups to 10 dead hang strict pull-ups, but it certainly isn’t 3 to 1.
Moreover, that only accounts for the physical movements and ignores biological efficiency. Anyone who has lifted heavy weight knows that it takes a lot more out of you when you increase the resistance by a little bit. For instance a triple at 85% is more than 2.5 times the physical work of a single at your max. Which kicks your butt more? I can’t say exactly what all the factors are whether they be leverage, muscle efficiency, energy systems, or something else. But if you only look at the total work done according to physics you are missing a large portion of the picture. [/quote]
Good point about the pendulum effect. I absolutely agree that looking at exercise purely according to physics misses a large part of the picture. I say as much in the last line of my post. I was really just playing devil’s advocate a little bit as xfit types tend to talk physics when explaining what they do and why they do it.
Like I said, I think dead hangs have much more value overall. However, when I need to get up on something for a practical purpose, I absolutely kip if it’s possible.
Pretty sure that the argument of using momentum is invalid to ensure a ‘strict form’. If so, then the catch portion of the clean wouldn’t be strict. The momentum of the bar bounce on the shoulders helps drive the athlete up out of the hole. Same with the jerk.
[quote]Burrseph wrote:
Pretty sure that the argument of using momentum is invalid to ensure a ‘strict form’. If so, then the catch portion of the clean wouldn’t be strict. The momentum of the bar bounce on the shoulders helps drive the athlete up out of the hole. Same with the jerk.[/quote]
What’s your point? That’s like using the Tour de France to justify bicycle usage in the Boston Marathon. Pull-ups and cleans aren’t the same thing.
[quote]setto222 wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Admittedly i was in a bad mood yesterday when I wrote that. You kept a level head and argued well. I guess the difference is that I train for fun with a side of performance and that’s about it.
Good discussion![/quote]
Right on. And again, I’m not trying to tell people how to train, just don’t like people calling things they are not because it tends to lead to all kinds of confusion and muddies the water of discussion when discussing exercises. If you enjoy how you train and it keeps you coming back for more and gets you closer to your goals then keep doing it. 
[quote]anthropocentric wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
But, yeah, kind of a different animal than pull-ups.
[/quote]
Agreed, it would be better to compare pull ups to push ups as they are both bodyweight exercises that do not involve a barbell. While the bench press utilizes some similar muscles to the push up, it is overall a different animal.
People don’t tend to pause at any portion of a push up for it to be considered perfect.
[/quote]
True, but just as with bench, in order for a rep to be considered “strict/perfect”, there must be control demonstrated throughout the entire ROM. I see lots of people (especially military) who basically just bounce off their chest at the bottom of the rep and only come up about 1/2 way. This makes push-ups considerably easier (just as only doing them in the top 1/2-1/3 like a lot of people do them does) and allows for many more reps to be completed. So, a pause is not necessary, but control through the full ROM (no bouncing) is.
I’d actually argue that dead hangs will result in equal if not more TUT than kipping will allow (talking about a purely DH set vs purely kipping set, obviously if you’re saying to do DH and then use kipping to extend the set we’re in total agreement). Consider that one’s shoulder extensors/adductors, scapular depressors, arm flexors, finger flexors/gripping muscles, and of course core musculature are under tension throughout all but maybe the very bottom of the dead hang (and even then they are still technically under tension). During kipping pull-ups on the other hand there are points along the ROM where certain muscles are highly activated and others are inactive or at best only slightly activated. So even with more reps, the muscles themselves aren’t actually under tension any longer (or even as long).
My gym has a crossfit training center, the owner and some trainers there are really into it. They gave the same info, the kipping pull up generates more force, more work, thus you can do more pullups. When I asked what the benefit was over standard dead hang pull ups, he said to be able to do more pull ups and work your hips, and emphasized the pull up number for crossfit competitions. So, he couldn’t really name any muscular benefits to the kipping pull up other than you can do more pullups in a shorter amount of time.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]238 wrote:
Not able to watch the video at the moment, but…
[quote]spk wrote:
making you work harder, making the number of reps go higher. [/quote]
So the harder something is, the more reps of it you can do? If I’m reading this right then why is it that in every other movement the harder it is, the less reps I can do? E.g. if I squat 120 kg I get less reps than if I squat 100 kg.[/quote]
Yeah, I had the same reaction to that point.
Along the same lines, why is it that there are lots of videos of women doing their “1st pull-up” who perform a kipping pull-up, but very few of women doing a dead hang pull-up if kipping pull-ups are harder? Wouldn’t it make sense that if kipping pull-ups were indeed harder than dead hangs, that a whole lot of women would get a dead hang before getting a kipping pull-up? Just as you don’t see any videos of people getting their first pull-up performing a strict muscle-up or butterfly pull-up on rings. Why? Because those are harder variations of pull-ups, so people are going to have to achieve the easier variations first.
Another good counter example would be the fact that when you watch people do max sets of pull-ups, they all kip more the further into the set they go (as they start to fatigue and they therefore look for ways to make the exercise easier to allow them to continue going). If kipping were indeed harder, then you’d expect them to kip less the further into the set they went.[/quote]
Not advocating for kipping or Xfit particularly, however, in terms of WORK (as opposed to exertion): mathematically WORK = FORCE X DISTANCE. So if you must generate x amount of force to get your chin over the bar and you travel y distance in the process you will have done more total WORK if you do 30 kipping as opposed to 10 dead hang pullups as you will have travelled 3x the distance. In fact, you will have done significantly more work, as you will have generated much more force in accelerating yourself to the bar while kipping as opposed to from a dead hang.
Again, it’s the math. FORCE = MASS x ACCELERATION. So if your mass stays constant but you accelerate much faster you have generated more force. Of course, this doesn’t really tell the whole story because you have drastically changed how you are generating that force, thus making it much easier in terms of exertion. However exertion =/= work.
I still prefer dead hangs.
Edited[/quote]
Technically this is true, but that would be like someone doing “cheat curls” that more closely resemble underhand grip power cleans and claiming that since they were able to do three times as many with the same weight that this method was a superior way of curling. And, if by that they simply mean getting the bar from point A to point B as many times as possible with no concern for which muscles got the bar there, then they would technically be correct. But this method of curling still pales in comparison (and is much less impressive from a strength/performance perspective) to strict curling using only the arm flexors to move the weight in terms of strength development for those muscles; which is generally the reason people perform curls in the first place.
[quote]robstein wrote:
My gym has a crossfit training center, the owner and some trainers there are really into it. They gave the same info, the kipping pull up generates more force, more work, thus you can do more pullups. When I asked what the benefit was over standard dead hang pull ups, he said to be able to do more pull ups and work your hips, and emphasized the pull up number for crossfit competitions. So, he couldn’t really name any muscular benefits to the kipping pull up other than you can do more pullups in a shorter amount of time.[/quote]
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Kipping pull-ups are good for doing lots of kipping pull-ups. They would also be a worthwhile skill if for some reason you had to pull yourself up onto something from a hang (and had the necessary space to do so) but for whatever reason were too tired/weak to do so using only the traditional pulling muscles (lats, arm flexors, etc…). They aren’t gonna get you good at dead hangs though or build much in terms of back muscle.