Gymnastics Biceps

Off Topic
21

[quote]PanchoPantera wrote:
Taken from the article ‘Building an Olympic Body through Bodyweight Conditioning’ by Christopher Sommer, who has an article here at T-Nation and has been recognized as a top strength coach.

'How strong is it possible to become with bodyweight exercises? Amazingly strong. In fact I would go so far as to say, done correctly, far stronger than someone who had trained for the same amount of time with free weights. Want some concrete examples? One of my former students, JJ Gregory (1993 Junior National Champion on the Still Rings) developed such a high degree of strength from my bodyweight conditioning program that on his first day in his high school weightlifting class he deadlifted 400lbs., and this at the scale breaking weight of 135 lbs. and a height of 5�??3�??. ’

Link to the above article:

[/quote]

How intense was the bodyweight training, and for how long? if it was much longer then a year I’m not too impressed. BOdyweight exercises ARE weightlifting after all.
I wouldalso be willing to bet my deadlift would be significantly higher right now if I was 5’3" and not even because I got any stronger. The deadlift is funny like that. Witha small build you get to grip the bar more narrowly, and you have a smaller ROM by whole inches. This isn’t an ecxuse. But the deadlift is a totally differnt monster for people of different builds.

very impressive though. The strongest untrained person I know deadlifted 315@150. He does nothing but sit on his ass, play halo and hocky during the winter.

22

400 pound deads do not impress me at any body weight, especially if hes 5’3.

His range of motion is about a foot.

Strength to weight ratio is nonsense, its like being in a bar and stepping up to a guy, then saying hey lets go to a gym, both do a max lift, than calculate who has a better bodyweight to strength ratio to see who wins. The bigger dude is just going to throw the 130 pounder like a discuss in the parking lot.

23

[quote]Westclock wrote:
strength relative to bodyweight is not the same thing as strength.

Those guys are probably weaker than most guys who just go to the gym and lift half assed on a steady diet of fast food, simply because of how small they are. Granted they are highly developed for their size, but thats like saying a jacked midget is impressive, hes still a midget.

While I do agree that most gymnasts are small and that women tend to like taller guys everything else you said is borderline retarded. Those “little” dudes are strong as fuck. I’d be willing to bet that the majority of them can bench AT LEAST 1.5x their bodyweight without having spent significant time under a barbell.

24

[quote]

While I do agree that most gymnasts are small and that women tend to like taller guys everything else you said is borderline retarded. Those “little” dudes are strong as fuck. I’d be willing to bet that the majority of them can bench AT LEAST 1.5x their bodyweight without having spent significant time under a barbell.[/quote]

again 1.5 times his bodyweight, 130, is still only 195 pounds.

Not to mention his range of motion is about 6 inches due to being 5’4

My 16 year old brother can move 195 6 “whole” inches.

My point is this, if you have to say he can bench alot…for his bodyweight, than that really just means hes weak.

I dont care if hes strong for his size, hes small, just because hes strong for a little guy doesn’t make him less of a little guy.

25

Why would you try to degrade their accomplishments? You may not into it, and that’s fine, but Westclock, you sound extremely juvenile right now. Gymnasts are amazingly strong in their upper bodies. Have you ever seen the sport? The only way you could maintain your position is if you had it confused with something else.

To the OP, elite male gymnasts tend to have a lot of muscle cells in their arms, the same way sprinters have a lot in their glutes and hamstrings.

26

Im not at all denying their enormous level of skill.

I am however refuting their strength in comparison to a majority of even the untrained male population.

I understand this seems like a shot at short guys in general, and the responses seem to indicate that, its not, 5’8 and 5’3 is a pretty significant difference. But I think you need to consider your views might be somewhat affected by your own physical stature.

You want strength to weight ratios to be impressive, because that would make you more impressive.

I will never be impressed by any lifts that have a bodyweight asterisk by it.

Juvenile isnt the right word, realistic is more appropriate.

27

i think it can best be said that the gymnasts are very skilled and “strong for their size”.

but it is doubtful that any of them would post very impressive numbers in the major lifts, despite their short limbs.

28

[quote]Westclock wrote:
strength relative to bodyweight is not the same thing as strength.

Those guys are probably weaker than most guys who just go to the gym and lift half assed on a steady diet of fast food, simply because of how small they are. Granted they are highly developed for their size, but thats like saying a jacked midget is impressive, hes still a midget.

this is mostly because the average male gymnast is 5’6" and 140. many are as low as 5’4 and 125 pounds. Thats a female like build to say the least.

For most women it would like dating a child.

I will never be jealous of a male smaller than my girl.

Ill take my extra 8 inches of height, and 90 pounds of muscle thank you very much.

[/quote]

you have no idea how wrong this is

the strength required for an iron cross, performed by every athlete in the still rings, is simply staggering. Try it, try even going close to parallel, it’s just IMPOSSIBLE. It is a feat of seemingly superhuman strength.

A better example, Danny Rogrigues held two Victorians in the still rings final. Here is a basic idea of the strength required to hold a Victorian:

(1) Hold yourself in a pullup
(2) rotate your body into a front lever position, body parallel to the ground with legs straight out(its almost a sure thing that not one person reading this thread could come close to holding this position)
(3) strap your bodyweight to your back and continue to hold the position
(4) do a pullup staying parallel to the floor. with double your bodyweight. TEN times.

That is freakish, mind boggling, near impossible strength. Even for a 140 pound guy, that’s 280 pounds in a front lever position for a pullup for 10 reps. There are only a handful of videos available of people even attempting half-assed front lever pullups with no weight and mediocre form for low reps if you look online. The above skill is basically the absolute limit of relative upper body strength. They may only weigh 140 pounds, but those 140 pounds are so unbelievably strong they would make the strongest guy in your gym look like a pussy.

I’m not saying I would want to be 5’4, but I am saying that these are incredible athletes with unreal strength that deserve respect

and yeah, some of them happen to have some really huge biceps. You guys see the first guy in the rings, older guy? christ!

29

And I doubt that anyone posting impressive numbers in the major lifts would be able to do an impressive routine on the rings, despite their superior strength.

This is a retarded argument all round, and the OP had his answer posts ago: unless you’re going to spend hours a day on gymnastic movements use some weights.

30

[quote]AmandaSC wrote:
I used to ride horses every day and I could have probably choked out a 200 lb man with my thighs back in the day.
[/quote]

I weigh 200 pounds and a pretty thick neck. I also enjoy horseback riding and having womens’ thighs wrapped around my head. Maybe we should meet up some time?

31

[quote]actionjeff wrote:

you have no idea how wrong this is

the strength required for an iron cross, performed by every athlete in the still rings, is simply staggering. Try it, try even going close to parallel, it’s just IMPOSSIBLE. It is a feat of seemingly superhuman strength. [/quote]

This is slowly getting retarded. These guys weigh all of 130lbs. That makes this “impossible” feat much more “possible” because they are that short in stature and light in body weight.

I hate it when people try to use “relative strength” as if it means anything to someone who is trying to be “absolutely strong” in the gym. A 500lbs benchpress is impressive. I am not impressed by someone lifting 250lbs no matter if they are 4’2" and weigh 89lbs.

If that impresses you, fine…just don’t expect the rest of us to oooh and aaah at this “impossible” feat.

Now, in terms of Olympic Gymnastics, it is impressive to see any athlete at the top of their game simply because they have succeeded. That doesn’t mean that the rest of us ignore our own goals and put these guys on pedestals when it comes to strength training and bodybuilding.

32

No, but i am much more impressed than someone benchpressing 250lbs if it is 2x their bodyweight than if it is just 1x. But i’m the first to admit strength is not linear with weight, of course someone at a lighter weight is going to be able to do more bodyweight exercises than a heavier person, and with less training.

But how good are they at what they do? I was watching the high bar last night… Impressive. I’m sure my grip wouldn’t even hold on after doing any one of those moves. Awesome to watch.

33

Sure the gymnastics are impressive yet for STRENGTH in the Olympics, I’m far more impressed with what Olympic Heavyweight lifters and some of the throwers in track and field.

Those guys are monsters and would be physically impressive if you saw them in person, unlike the gymnasts.

34

[quote]Professor X wrote:
actionjeff wrote:

you have no idea how wrong this is

the strength required for an iron cross, performed by every athlete in the still rings, is simply staggering. Try it, try even going close to parallel, it’s just IMPOSSIBLE. It is a feat of seemingly superhuman strength.

This is slowly getting retarded. These guys weigh all of 130lbs. That makes this “impossible” feat much more “possible” because they are that short in stature and light in body weight.

I hate it when people try to use “relative strength” as if it means anything to someone who is trying to be “absolutely strong” in the gym. A 500lbs benchpress is impressive. I am not impressed by someone lifting 250lbs no matter if they are 4’2" and weigh 89lbs.

If that impresses you, fine…just don’t expect the rest of us to oooh and aaah at this “impossible” feat.

Now, in terms of Olympic Gymnastics, it is impressive to see any athlete at the top of their game simply because they have succeeded. That doesn’t mean that the rest of us ignore our own goals and put these guys on pedestals when it comes to strength training and bodybuilding.[/quote]

hey I agree with you as far as relative strength, and understand that relative strength is greater for smaller athletes with are more physically suited for their sports. They don’t train bench press or build exceptionally strong triceps compared to a powerlifter even with relative strength. But their shoulder strength, bicep strength, and upper back strength are truly phenomenal both by relative strength standards and absolute strength standards.

The problem is the bench and overhead press are the only upper body lifts in most strength sports and that’s what everyone wants to compare them to, and obviously gymnasts are terribly outmatched for lower body, and aren’t going to be pressing a ton of weight not being training powerlifters. That being said, I am confident most at the elite level could bench over 2x bodyweight without any training, and just think people are overestimating the staggering strength required for some of the movements. A 140 pound man may be small, but the absolute strength in the pectoral, shoulder, traps, abs, and lats and upper back required for some of the positions is quite huge. I think the Victorian example said it best. Even a 140 pound needs freakish, incredible overall body strength to hold a front lever perfectly parallel to the floor an do a set of 10 pullups with their bodyweight attached… an unbelievably huge amount of strength. Maybe the strongest guys on here could pullup 280 pounds or a good amount more , but in a front lever position? for 10 reps? no chance in hell, not ever in their lives. Those guys could curl, shoulder press, row, and pullup w/added weight enormous numbers to rival those of 200+ pound bodybuilders, strongmen, and powerlifters alike. Those muscles are the real deal from years of very, very heavy loading by holding positions with terrible leverage.

my take anyway. Don’t want to argue with the Prof! But I just think this thread is a little silly and uninformed in many sports with people making ridiculous assertions like these gymnasts aren’t as strong a the average gym rat!

I wish one of the gymnast strength trainers on here like Sommer would come in and give input, I’m interested to.

35

[quote]shizen wrote:
Sure the gymnastics are impressive yet for STRENGTH in the Olympics, I’m far more impressed with what Olympic Heavyweight lifters and some of the throwers in track and field.

Those guys are monsters and would be physically impressive if you saw them in person, unlike the gymnasts. [/quote]

no doubt, those guys are insane and awesome athletes. I train as a weightlifter myself! and have enormous respect for their explosive power

36

[quote]Westclock wrote:

I am however refuting their strength in comparison to a majority of even the untrained male population.

[/quote]

hahahahahahahaha! I’m sorry, but that made me laugh!

37

I’m glad it will be another 4 years before we have another ‘I wanna be built like a male gymnast thread’!

Now, if someone can just direct me to the ‘how to look like Michael Phelps’ thread I would appreciate it.

38

Haha, I think most people could do worse than aspiring to be built like one… They’re doing alright for themselves in the physique department, upper body anyway. With their frame, there is no way they’re gonna be putting on what most of the people on a bodybuilding forum would consider to be a huge amount of muscle, and they can’t help that. At 5’4 they will never have the same physical presence of a heavyweight, unless they become a heavyweight themselves.

I wonder how Lee Priest would go on the rings…

39

Yeah that comment was pretty retarded. Very retarded actually.

It’s dumb to try to compare the two aspects. Gymnasts look and perform like they do because of how they train and their size. Same goes for powerlifters. IMO the biggest difference, being in appearance, is caused from height and that gymnasts use their body weight…so any excess weight (aka fat) is just going to hinder their performance. Thus- no fat for elite gymnasts.

No one on these forums can do a planche or iron cross (or at least not many), but how much time have they spent training for them? There are plenty of guys here who can squat/dead 400, 500+ pounds but I’m willing to bet no (or at least not many) gymnasts can do that. Again, because of their training.

40

[quote]AmandaSC wrote:
… I used to ride horses every day and I could have probably choked out a 200 lb man with my thighs back in the day.

[/quote]

How about a 205 pound man? :wink: