Gymnastics Biceps

Off Topic
61

[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]

Strength and speed are two completely different aspects of sport.

I have nothing but respect for Phelps, hes a genetic freak and perfectly built for swimming, with an absurd VO2 limit.

Sure hes a skinny looking, goofy proportioned son of a bitch, but apprently thats the ideal swimmer build, not my thing, but hey hes dominant.

He trains only for speed, its like making fun of a sprinter for having a small upper body, what the hell does he need it for ? You use your arms for momentum, but they dont need much mass for that.

62

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Ants are the greatest lifters ever. I saw one pick up a moth once.[/quote]

This post makes a very good point. Chimps are way stronger than humans because of hormones and some other physical differences, but if you grew one to human size, its strengh would not scale up proportionally. It’s just easier to be proportionally strong at a smaller size. The actual muscle tissue is no different so of course it will work better with shorter levers and distances to travel. Why do you think all olympic level gymasts are small? I’m sure there are plenty of kids that start out young who end up getting too tall and thus lose that advantage.

63

The best powerlifters are all actually pretty tall guys. According to some of you, with the shorter range of motion, shouldn’t the shortest guys be winning all of these competitions? Look at Kennelly, Bolton, etc. Look at strongman - all those guys are well over 6ft.

Also, sure it’s easier for shorter guys to look bigger with less overall mass. At the same time, fat gains are also more noticeable. If a 5-4, 140 lbs guy gains 20 lbs of fat and a 6-2, 140 lbs guy gains 20 lbs of fat, who would it be more noticeable on?

Also, Ronnie Coleman never had a problem winning all those Olympias at 5-11.

64

[quote]Ouiser wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Ants are the greatest lifters ever. I saw one pick up a moth once.

This post makes a very good point. Chimps are way stronger than humans because of hormones and some other physical differences, but if you grew one to human size, its strengh would not scale up proportionally. It’s just easier to be proportionally strong at a smaller size. The actual muscle tissue is no different so of course it will work better with shorter levers and distances to travel. Why do you think all olympic level gymasts are small? I’m sure there are plenty of kids that start out young who end up getting too tall and thus lose that advantage.

[/quote]

But Chimps have long arms, so the short lever theory doesn’t apply.

65

[quote]Reef wrote:
The best powerlifters are all actually pretty tall guys. According to some of you, with the shorter range of motion, shouldn’t the shortest guys be winning all of these competitions? Look at Kennelly, Bolton, etc. Look at strongman - all those guys are well over 6ft.

Also, sure it’s easier for shorter guys to look bigger with less overall mass. At the same time, fat gains are also more noticeable. If a 5-4, 140 lbs guy gains 20 lbs of fat and a 6-2, 140 lbs guy gains 20 lbs of fat, who would it be more noticeable on?

Also, Ronnie Coleman never had a problem winning all those Olympias at 5-11.
[/quote]

Its a progressive curve in terms of height.

If your shorter you have better leverage which makes you better up till a certain level, but eventually being taller just allows you to carry so much more mass that EVENTUALLY tall guys have more maximum potential for development.

What are the chances of a shorter guy carrying 250 or 270 pounds of mass ? it has been done, but not very often.

And on the monkey thing, thats not even relevant, you cant compare animals to humans to begin with, they have different hormone and receptor setups, and monkies dont even have very similar frames compared to humans.

66

[quote]Reef wrote:
The best powerlifters are all actually pretty tall guys. According to some of you, with the shorter range of motion, shouldn’t the shortest guys be winning all of these competitions? Look at Kennelly, Bolton, etc. Look at strongman - all those guys are well over 6ft.

Also, sure it’s easier for shorter guys to look bigger with less overall mass. At the same time, fat gains are also more noticeable. If a 5-4, 140 lbs guy gains 20 lbs of fat and a 6-2, 140 lbs guy gains 20 lbs of fat, who would it be more noticeable on?

Also, Ronnie Coleman never had a problem winning all those Olympias at 5-11.
[/quote]

The taller guys in the top weight classes are also carrying MUCH more muscle overall than most very short lifters. If some guy weighs all of 300+lbs of mostly lean body mass, why would you assume that height would still be the greatest advantage?

Are you all just being obtuse on purpose? No one wrote that shorter lifters will be able to outlift everyone. It was written that the distance is less to travel in lifting a weight. Damn, some of you are constricted in thought.

67

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Reef wrote:
The best powerlifters are all actually pretty tall guys. According to some of you, with the shorter range of motion, shouldn’t the shortest guys be winning all of these competitions? Look at Kennelly, Bolton, etc. Look at strongman - all those guys are well over 6ft.

Also, sure it’s easier for shorter guys to look bigger with less overall mass. At the same time, fat gains are also more noticeable. If a 5-4, 140 lbs guy gains 20 lbs of fat and a 6-2, 140 lbs guy gains 20 lbs of fat, who would it be more noticeable on?

Also, Ronnie Coleman never had a problem winning all those Olympias at 5-11.

The taller guys in the top weight classes are also carrying MUCH more muscle overall than most very short lifters. If some guy weighs all of 300+lbs of mostly lean body mass, why would you assume that height would still be the greatest advantage?

Are you all just being obtuse on purpose? No one wrote that shorter lifters will be able to outlift everyone. It was written that the distance is less to travel in lifting a weight. Damn, some of you are constricted in thought.[/quote]

It was defnitely implied that those who are shorter have an easier time benching and deadlifting. There’s plenty of short guys in powerlifting in every class, yet all the taller lifters seem to be the best. Do you think Andy Bolton would still be deadlifting 1000 lbs if he was 5-6?

68

who said there all 5 foot 4?

Also, women practically drown in there own drool looking at these guys, doubt they do that for the average, non lifting slob.

And fuck, There strong as fuck. All that floor work flipping about and ninja moves. I would kill to be able to do that shit.

so who here would rather have magnusson’s body and be able to dealift 1100 pounds or have one of these guys body and be able to do all the shit they do?

thats a toughie for me actually…

69

[quote]Westclock wrote:

And on the monkey thing, thats not even relevant, you cant compare animals to humans to begin with, they have different hormone and receptor setups, and monkies dont even have very similar frames compared to humans.[/quote]

This was in reference to this quote about chimps by the previous poster.

70

[quote]Reef wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Reef wrote:
The best powerlifters are all actually pretty tall guys. According to some of you, with the shorter range of motion, shouldn’t the shortest guys be winning all of these competitions? Look at Kennelly, Bolton, etc. Look at strongman - all those guys are well over 6ft.

Also, sure it’s easier for shorter guys to look bigger with less overall mass. At the same time, fat gains are also more noticeable. If a 5-4, 140 lbs guy gains 20 lbs of fat and a 6-2, 140 lbs guy gains 20 lbs of fat, who would it be more noticeable on?

Also, Ronnie Coleman never had a problem winning all those Olympias at 5-11.

The taller guys in the top weight classes are also carrying MUCH more muscle overall than most very short lifters. If some guy weighs all of 300+lbs of mostly lean body mass, why would you assume that height would still be the greatest advantage?

Are you all just being obtuse on purpose? No one wrote that shorter lifters will be able to outlift everyone. It was written that the distance is less to travel in lifting a weight. Damn, some of you are constricted in thought.

It was defnitely implied that those who are shorter have an easier time benching and deadlifting. There’s plenty of short guys in powerlifting in every class, yet all the taller lifters seem to be the best. Do you think Andy Bolton would still be deadlifting 1000 lbs if he was 5-6?[/quote]

Wait, let me make this clearer for you since you seem to be missing the point. At the top weight classes, height is not as important as the overall mass of the individual. It isn’t that “taller” lifters seem to be the best. It is that the biggest and strongest lifters are carrying more muscle or body mass than anyone else allowing them to move more weight.

If there was some short guy who could match a 300lb’er for body mass, muscle and strength, your observation might change.

71

[quote]Westclock wrote:
Its a progressive curve in terms of height.

If your shorter you have better leverage which makes you better up till a certain level, but eventually being taller just allows you to carry so much more mass that EVENTUALLY tall guys have more maximum potential for development.

[/quote]

Ohhh, to a certain point, I see. And at what point would that be? Great argument. Just read the last line you wrote to yourself. Maybe if you gain that extra muscle mass, you won’t have to bitch about better leverages.

72

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Reef wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Reef wrote:
The best powerlifters are all actually pretty tall guys. According to some of you, with the shorter range of motion, shouldn’t the shortest guys be winning all of these competitions? Look at Kennelly, Bolton, etc. Look at strongman - all those guys are well over 6ft.

Also, sure it’s easier for shorter guys to look bigger with less overall mass. At the same time, fat gains are also more noticeable. If a 5-4, 140 lbs guy gains 20 lbs of fat and a 6-2, 140 lbs guy gains 20 lbs of fat, who would it be more noticeable on?

Also, Ronnie Coleman never had a problem winning all those Olympias at 5-11.

The taller guys in the top weight classes are also carrying MUCH more muscle overall than most very short lifters. If some guy weighs all of 300+lbs of mostly lean body mass, why would you assume that height would still be the greatest advantage?

Are you all just being obtuse on purpose? No one wrote that shorter lifters will be able to outlift everyone. It was written that the distance is less to travel in lifting a weight. Damn, some of you are constricted in thought.

It was defnitely implied that those who are shorter have an easier time benching and deadlifting. There’s plenty of short guys in powerlifting in every class, yet all the taller lifters seem to be the best. Do you think Andy Bolton would still be deadlifting 1000 lbs if he was 5-6?

Wait, let me make this clearer for you since you seem to be missing the point. At the top weight classes, height is not as important as the overall mass of the individual. It isn’t that “taller” lifters seem to be the best. It is that the biggest and strongest lifters are carrying more muscle or body mass than anyone else allowing them to move more weight.

If there was some short guy who could match a 300lb’er for body mass, muscle and strength, your observation might change.[/quote]

Imagine a guy at 5’8 300 pounds. That would be hilarious.

And Id rather be able to dead 1100 pounds, thank you very much, its not at all a toss up for me.

And @ Reef, I dont claim to be all that tall or heavy, Im only 6 foot, most of the guys were talking about are 6’5 or so, they make me look like a shrimp.

I have no idea what that point of progression is, because it will be radically different depending on who your comparing.

I do know that it is a bell curve in leverage to overall mass ratios.

And it does amuse me how butt hurt short guys have been today in this thread, Im not complaining at all about leverages in shorter power lifters, Im simply stating how it works.

73

Well, since they do have those ‘ninja moves’ and drool going for them-

I officially change my stance.

74

[quote]Westclock wrote:
And it does amuse me how butt hurt short guys have been today in this thread, Im not complaining at all about leverages in shorter power lifters, Im simply stating how it works.

[/quote]

no kidding.

75

The answer to your question is obviously strictly TBT, I would search some Waterbury for more info

76

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Reef wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Reef wrote:

Wait, let me make this clearer for you since you seem to be missing the point. At the top weight classes, height is not as important as the overall mass of the individual. It isn’t that “taller” lifters seem to be the best. It is that the biggest and strongest lifters are carrying more muscle or body mass than anyone else allowing them to move more weight.

If there was some short guy who could match a 300lb’er for body mass, muscle and strength, your observation might change.[/quote]

But its not possible for a short guy to be 300lb and relatively lean.

I mean, i wouldn’t accuse lee priest of not training hard enough for ONLY being 200-225 competing.

Height and frame is a factor in determining how big you can get. A shorter guy will always beat a taller guy if they weigh the same, but with the same training the man with the bigger frame, taller or shorter, will win.

And by the way, the ‘distance of the bar’ argument is bullshit. I’m guessing you go to the same gym as the people at the start of this video and you need to justify it somehow :smiley:

Look at these pussys, not being 300lbs… obviously not training as hard as you guys who were 180 before even touching a weight on a 6 foot plus frame.

77

[quote]tmcg86 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Reef wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Reef wrote:

Wait, let me make this clearer for you since you seem to be missing the point. At the top weight classes, height is not as important as the overall mass of the individual. It isn’t that “taller” lifters seem to be the best. It is that the biggest and strongest lifters are carrying more muscle or body mass than anyone else allowing them to move more weight.

If there was some short guy who could match a 300lb’er for body mass, muscle and strength, your observation might change.

But its not possible for a short guy to be 300lb and relatively lean.

I mean, i wouldn’t accuse lee priest of not training hard enough for ONLY being 200-225 competing.

Height and frame is a factor in determining how big you can get. A shorter guy will always beat a taller guy if they weigh the same, but with the same training the man with the bigger frame, taller or shorter, will win.

And by the way, the ‘distance of the bar’ argument is bullshit. I’m guessing you go to the same gym as the people at the start of this video and you need to justify it somehow :smiley:

Look at these pussys, not being 300lbs… obviously not training as hard as you guys who were 180 before even touching a weight on a 6 foot plus frame.[/quote]

No one has ever said (in this thread at least) that shorter guys don’t train as hard. You’re right of course though… basic human anatomy and physics? Complete bullshit.

78

[quote]tmcg86 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Reef wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Reef wrote:

Wait, let me make this clearer for you since you seem to be missing the point. At the top weight classes, height is not as important as the overall mass of the individual. It isn’t that “taller” lifters seem to be the best. It is that the biggest and strongest lifters are carrying more muscle or body mass than anyone else allowing them to move more weight.

If there was some short guy who could match a 300lb’er for body mass, muscle and strength, your observation might change.
But its not possible for a short guy to be 300lb and relatively lean.

I mean, i wouldn’t accuse lee priest of not training hard enough for ONLY being 200-225 competing.

Height and frame is a factor in determining how big you can get. A shorter guy will always beat a taller guy if they weigh the same, but with the same training the man with the bigger frame, taller or shorter, will win.

And by the way, the ‘distance of the bar’ argument is bullshit. I’m guessing you go to the same gym as the people at the start of this video and you need to justify it somehow :smiley:

Look at these pussys, not being 300lbs… obviously not training as hard as you guys who were 180 before even touching a weight on a 6 foot plus frame.[/quote]

Oh man I’m loving this thread, its definitely made my day. Being so defensive does not help your case at all, it only confirms my point.

No one is talking about how hard you work in relation to anyone else, were simply stating that short guys have a leverage advantage, or
“distance the bar travels”, and less mass potential.

Its not debatable, its a fact.

But if you want to play the technicalities and work game, then all I have to do is state the formula for work: Force times distance.

79

[quote]tmcg86 wrote:

But its not possible for a short guy to be 300lb and relatively lean.[/quote]

Well then, I guess no short guys will ever be the strongest man in the world.

[quote]

I mean, i wouldn’t accuse lee priest of not training hard enough for ONLY being 200-225 competing. [/quote]

Uh, who wrote that short people don’t train hard enough?

This is classic short man syndrome. You equate your stature with your self worth and get hyper-defensive any time someone suggests that height plays a role in a certain activity.

[quote]

Height and frame is a factor in determining how big you can get. A shorter guy will always beat a taller guy if they weigh the same, but with the same training the man with the bigger frame, taller or shorter, will win.[/quote]

You don’t say.

[quote]

And by the way, the ‘distance of the bar’ argument is bullshit. I’m guessing you go to the same gym as the people at the start of this video and you need to justify it somehow :D.[/quote]

How is it bullshit that someone shorter has less distance to travel in a pressing movement than someone taller? Are you denying physics?

80

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:
Who else thinks that the men’s gymnasts have proportionately large biceps for their total bodyweight? I have seen a lot of people throw guesstimates around about the max size of biceps per bodyweight but those guys have huge balls of bicep muscle even though they are pretty slender. How can you simulate gymnastics training other than doing rings work every day?

[/quote]

Believe it or not, most gymnasts get those thick arms from ZERO curls or any type of curl movements. Rather, they use straight arm work (mostly crosses and planche’s) which yield such extreme stress on the bicep in their advanced positions that such growth isn’t only possible, but rather very probable.

The olympic rings have given me the ability to blow throw a lot of my PR’s because of how much they trained/strenghtened my connective tissue as well as the muscle.