Gymnastics Biceps

Off Topic
41

[quote]Westclock wrote:
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.

[/quote]

Realistic? You’re joking right? All that bullshit about range of motion is just that, bullshit. The range of motion is directly proportioned to the height of the lifter. My range of motion is the same as your range of motion, proportionally. Unless you have freakishly short arms for your height. And if you do, then I apologize, because then you’re surely right.

And if you’re talking absolutes though… then sure. But then you have to consider how much more ‘absolute’ leverage you have over a shorter person.

And for the old “short guys have to carry less LBM to look muscular”… yes… IF you’re talking ABSOLUTES. Proportionally it is ALL THE SAME. If you have a bigger frame you’re going to have to carry more LBM to look muscular. Sorry. Get over it.

It’s not any easier for the shorter person to put on the required mass to look big. The amount of LBM you can put on in just a weeks time is directly effected by your height/weight. I can only put on .4lbs a week because of that, where as, many can put on a whole 1lb a week.

Proportionally it is all the same. Those of you who think it is EASIER for ANYBODY based solely on height, well, you’re full of shit. Try being 8 inches shorter and benchpressing the same you do now. It won’t happen. It’s just the way it is and saying all this crap about how it’s easier for those of us who are short… that’s just making you seem like insecure bitches.

Oh, and yes, I’m short. 5’2". And I’m pissed:)

42

[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
Westclock wrote:
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.

Realistic? You’re joking right? All that bullshit about range of motion is just that, bullshit. The range of motion is directly proportioned to the height of the lifter. My range of motion is the same as your range of motion, proportionally. Unless you have freakishly short arms for your height. And if you do, then I apologize, because then you’re surely right.

And if you’re talking absolutes though… then sure. But then you have to consider how much more ‘absolute’ leverage you have over a shorter person.

And for the old “short guys have to carry less LBM to look muscular”… yes… IF you’re talking ABSOLUTES. Proportionally it is ALL THE SAME. If you have a bigger frame you’re going to have to carry more LBM to look muscular. Sorry. Get over it.

It’s not any easier for the shorter person to put on the required mass to look big. The amount of LBM you can put on in just a weeks time is directly effected by your height/weight. I can only put on .4lbs a week because of that, where as, many can put on a whole 1lb a week.

Proportionally it is all the same. Those of you who think it is EASIER for ANYBODY based solely on height, well, you’re full of shit. Try being 8 inches shorter and benchpressing the same you do now. It won’t happen. It’s just the way it is and saying all this crap about how it’s easier for those of us who are short… that’s just making you seem like insecure bitches.

Oh, and yes, I’m short. 5’2". And I’m pissed:) [/quote]

There is so much off in this post that I don’t even want to attack it. But this statement, “[quote]I can only put on .4lbs a week because of that, where as, many can put on a whole 1lb a week.[/quote]” made me laugh the fuck out loud.

If you even think your body has some preset limit/quota as far as the amount of muscle you will EVER be able to gain in one week, you need to stop typing and sign up for a college level biology course.

43

I love it how all of you weekend warriors try to shit all over the Olympic athletes. “Blah blah blah I can lift more”. Where the fuck are your gold medals?

If you want to talk about the original question then it has pretty much been answered that weight lifting will probably give you teh biceps faster than gymnastics.

Go back to bashing Michael Phelps because we all know he is really training to compete against you guys in a bodybuilding contest 4 sho.

44

[quote]brian.m wrote:
to be honest, whenever i’ve asked…most girls seem to prefer tall and average build over short with great builds…like almost everytime (unfortunate since one you have control over, the other you do not, it doesnt seem fair but it is what it is)
[/quote]

if women have proved one thing it’s that they don’t know what the hell they want

45

[quote]Professor X wrote:
There is so much off in this post that I don’t even want to attack it. But this statement, “I can only put on .4lbs a week because of that, where as, many can put on a whole 1lb a week.” made me laugh the fuck out loud.

If you even think your body has some preset limit/quota as far as the amount of muscle you will EVER be able to gain in one week, you need to stop typing and sign up for a college level biology course.[/quote]

Well, I’m glad I could humor you, oh mighty Professor X. And I got the idea of the amount of LBM you can put on a week from this:

http://www.weightrainer.net/gaincalc.html

And if there is so much ‘off’ in the post, then why don’t you educate me? Feed me all your bullshit about how it’s easier for the shorter lifter. Go ahead.

46

[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
Professor X wrote:
There is so much off in this post that I don’t even want to attack it. But this statement, “I can only put on .4lbs a week because of that, where as, many can put on a whole 1lb a week.” made me laugh the fuck out loud.

If you even think your body has some preset limit/quota as far as the amount of muscle you will EVER be able to gain in one week, you need to stop typing and sign up for a college level biology course.

Well, I’m glad I could humor you, oh mighty Professor X. And I got the idea of the amount of LBM you can put on a week from this:

http://www.weightrainer.net/gaincalc.html

And if there is so much ‘off’ in the post, then why don’t you educate me? Feed me all your bullshit about how it’s easier for the shorter lifter. Go ahead.

[/quote]

It isn’t necessarily about “easier”. However, if you think that a lifter who is 5’2" has the same distance to press a weight as someone who is over 6 feet tall, you don’t have much experience. I could care less what some link you post has written.

You can NOT predict how much or even when your body is going to supercompensate with added muscle tissue. There are far too many variables involved. Newbies fall into this trap of thinking in terms of restrictions. That is a road to failure…especially when you have no solid base of knowledge to pull from to tell the difference between truth and fiction.

As far as how much muscle it takes to look muscular, YES it is easier for a smaller guy to look muscular than someone who is very tall. Why even act like this isn’t the case? If someone has to weigh over 250lbs just to look muscular at 6’6", why do you think the 5’6" guy who looks muscular at 150lbs has it just as hard?

47

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It isn’t necessarily about “easier”. However, if you think that a lifter who is 5’2" has the same distance to press a weight as someone who is over 6 feet tall, you don’t have much experience. [/quote]

I wasn’t saying ACTUAL distance. It would make sense that the distance would be proportional to the size of the lifter. That’s all I’m saying. The taller the lifer, the longer the limbs and bigger the joints will be (as a general rule of thumb), yes? So of course the distance would be bigger. But it is proportional to their size. Right?

Well, ok. But I was just saying where I got the idea from, so I didn’t look like I just pulled it out of my ass.

Ok. But I figured the restrictions just gave me a more realistic goal for each week. For me, I’m often way too impatient and frustrate the hell out of myself - so the restrictions save me alot of that. Because I can almost always meet those ‘restrictions’ and weeks I don’t, well shit, I did something wrong. So i figure out what I did wrong.

[quote]
As far as how much muscle it takes to look muscular, YES it is easier for a smaller guy to look muscular than someone who is very tall. Why even act like this isn’t the case? If someone has to weigh over 250lbs just to look muscular at 6’6", why do you think the 5’6" guy who looks muscular at 150lbs has it just as hard? [/quote]

And again, I didn’t mean the actual amount of muscle… like I said two posts ago… all I’m saying is that it’s proportionally the same. The bigger your frame, yes, the more actual muscle you’ll have to have to look bigger. But that only makes sense because the bigger your frame is, the bigger everything is.

I don’t see how it would be ‘harder’ because it is still proportionally the same. That’s all I was saying.

48

There must be a lot of Olympic champions on here.

49

[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
I wasn’t saying ACTUAL distance. It would make sense that the distance would be proportional to the size of the lifter. That’s all I’m saying. The taller the lifer, the longer the limbs and bigger the joints will be (as a general rule of thumb), yes? So of course the distance would be bigger. But it is proportional to their size. Right?[/quote]

This right here is why people get pissed when guys start throwing “relative strength” around. It doesn’t matter if they are “proportionally similar”, the smaller lifter still has less distance to travel to complete a lift than someone significantly taller with longer limbs.

[quote]

Ok. But I figured the restrictions just gave me a more realistic goal for each week. For me, I’m often way too impatient and frustrate the hell out of myself - so the restrictions save me alot of that. Because I can almost always meet those ‘restrictions’ and weeks I don’t, well shit, I did something wrong. So i figure out what I did wrong.[/quote]

Those “restrictions” serve no purpose at all but to prevent you from ever seeing if you can do better.

Dear lord, the only people worried this much about how “relative” everything is are the shorter people or people in specific weight classes in powerlifting.

There is a reason there are very few lifters over 6’2" who do well in bodybuilding. It takes much longer and much more effort to build enough size to equal what someone as short as Lee Priest can put together at only 200lbs.

50

Jesus, I don’t think anyone on here is saying they are an olympic champion. They are simply saying that if you saw one of those guys in person, they’d be a lot less impressive than you think because they’re pretty small. People see these guys on t.v. and don’t realize they’re not that big.

51

[quote]GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
I love it how all of you weekend warriors try to shit all over the Olympic athletes. “Blah blah blah I can lift more”. Where the fuck are your gold medals?

If you want to talk about the original question then it has pretty much been answered that weight lifting will probably give you teh biceps faster than gymnastics.

Go back to bashing Michael Phelps because we all know he is really training to compete against you guys in a bodybuilding contest 4 sho.[/quote]

Thank you sir.

52

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This right here is why people get pissed when guys start throwing “relative strength” around. It doesn’t matter if they are “proportionally similar”, the smaller lifter still has less distance to travel to complete a lift than someone significantly taller with longer limbs.[/quote]

It does too matter if they are proportionally similar - especially when somebody starts trying to undermine what a shorter lifter/athlete has achieved because of their height! That’s the only reason I was throwing that around!

[quote]
Dear lord, the only people worried this much about how “relative” everything is are the shorter people or people in specific weight classes in powerlifting.[/quote]

Or shorter people who have people constantly trying to undermine what they have achieved.

Ok. Point taken.

Look Prof X, I’m not trying to be a retarded newb. I am willing to listen and learn. I just get pissed when there are so many people who try to undermine what shorter BBers/Lifters/athletes do. I’ve heard crap about it all my life, and it makes my blood boil.

53

[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
Ok. Point taken.

Look Prof X, I’m not trying to be a retarded newb. I am willing to listen and learn. I just get pissed when there are so many people who try to undermine what shorter BBers/Lifters/athletes do. I’ve heard crap about it all my life, and it makes my blood boil.
[/quote]

Channel that into more intensity in the gym, AND the kitchen.

54

[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This right here is why people get pissed when guys start throwing “relative strength” around. It doesn’t matter if they are “proportionally similar”, the smaller lifter still has less distance to travel to complete a lift than someone significantly taller with longer limbs.

It does too matter if they are proportionally similar - especially when somebody starts trying to undermine what a shorter lifter/athlete has achieved because of their height! That’s the only reason I was throwing that around![/quote]

No one is in the dark about why you felt the need to jump in. However, this need to make it seem as if being shorter is not an advantage at all in bodybuilding or even some lifting practices is a little silly. It IS an advantage and whether you call it “easier” or “difficulty challenged”, the end result is the same…less distance.

[quote]

Or shorter people who have people constantly trying to undermine what they have achieved.[/quote]

Take that too far and it wins the title of “short man syndrome”.

I don’t think you are retarded. If I did, I would have responded much differently.

55

Yeah, that is called little man syndrome. It is about time to put your big boy pants on, become comfortable with yourself and who you are, and stop being so emotionally invested in everyone else’s view of you. People generally look at the world from the view that suits them the best or puts them in the best light.

People will tell you that you can lift more than them because you’re shorter than them and have to move the bar a lesser distance because it makes them feel better about themselves. It also, might be partially true in some cases, but who gives a shit? If you can out lift them, then you can out lift them. If that same person is better than you at basketball, being taller surely helps, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t a better basketball player than you. They are because height, weight, and bodies in general are apart of everything we do physically.

56

[quote]Westclock wrote:

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.

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.

[/quote]

For someone who’s never trained with weights to walk in and bench 1.5 there bodyweight is strong as fuck, and extremely impressive. I don’t know why you keep knocking these guys strength. They are strong, end of discussion.

57

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Westclock wrote:

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.

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.

For someone who’s never trained with weights to walk in and bench 1.5 there bodyweight is strong as fuck, and extremely impressive. I don’t know why you keep knocking these guys strength. They are strong, end of discussion.[/quote]

If you take into consideration his post in the Squat/machine squat thread in the bb forum as well as his posts in this thread… I’m starting to believe that he’s a troll.

58

Ants are the greatest lifters ever. I saw one pick up a moth once.

59

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…
There is so much off in this post that I don’t even want to attack it. But this statement, “I can only put on .4lbs a week because of that, where as, many can put on a whole 1lb a week.” made me laugh the fuck out loud.

If you even think your body has some preset limit/quota as far as the amount of muscle you will EVER be able to gain in one week, you need to stop typing and sign up for a college level biology course.[/quote]

You’re just jealous because I gain one pound a week.

60

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…
There is so much off in this post that I don’t even want to attack it. But this statement, “I can only put on .4lbs a week because of that, where as, many can put on a whole 1lb a week.” made me laugh the fuck out loud.

If you even think your body has some preset limit/quota as far as the amount of muscle you will EVER be able to gain in one week, you need to stop typing and sign up for a college level biology course.

You’re just jealous because I gain one pound a week.[/quote]

I am. I am left eating my one pound of beef in a sitting which means I am gaining waaaaaaaaaaaay too fast each meal.