Gymnastics Biceps

[Westclock]

[quote]Gael wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Did he mean 1 rep with 70 lbs db’s holding them 3-5 sec at the top?
That would be a joke.

I doubt that those gymnasts can do a standing (reasonably strict) set of 8-12 or whatever laterals with the 70’s… Or does anyone have a vid of that ? (I’m seriously interested, not for arguments sake or anything… But you’d need some pretty damn short arms to do that and not have huge delts at the same time imo…)

That goes back to these guys acting like these are tiny supermen. I use 70’s for lateral raises. I would like to think my delts LOOK like it too.

I doubt any of these guys are using that much weight for exercises like that unless, as you pointed out, their arms are about 5 inches long.

If a 140 lbs person does an inverted iron cross – how is that any easier than the same guy doing 70 lbs lateral raise? I don’t know which is harder, but I am sure they are in the same ballpark.

Your delts are huge and strong, but remember, westclock wrote:

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

This is the object of discussion, and it is absurd.

[/quote]

Agian strength is not “relative strength”.

Just because the 130-140 pound guy benches 1.5 times his bodyweight doesn’t make that weight any more than 210.

A pound is a pound is a pound, if your 400 pounds of lard and impending heart failure, and you can put 211 up, Your still stronger than an Olympic gymnast.

Hell Im stronger than some of the Olympic weightlifters, granted they are in the lower weight classes, does that make me a better athlete, obviously not as I’m not in the olympics.

It does make me stronger, end of story, this debate is completely ridiculous.

You cant debate this its impossible.

Olympic gymnasts are SKILLED, not strong, strong for their body weight fine, they are still weaker compared to the average 5’10 200 something pound male that lifts occasionally and eats fast food fairly often (average American).

And on the lateral raise question, you failed to read my post, its not only bodyweight that gives them an advantage but also arm length.

Shorter arm, shorter torque arm, less force. A tall guy doing a lateral raise with a 70 is significantly more force than a short guy doing an iron cross at 130 or 140 or what have you.

[gilesdm]

[quote]Westclock wrote:

Olympic gymnasts are SKILLED, not strong, strong for their body weight fine, they are still weaker compared to the average 5’10 200 something pound male that lifts occasionally and eats fast food fairly often (average American).

[/quote]

hahahahaha! hahahahaha!! no, please stop… hahahaha! I can’t take it anymore… ha ha…

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]Gael wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Did he mean 1 rep with 70 lbs db’s holding them 3-5 sec at the top?
That would be a joke.

I doubt that those gymnasts can do a standing (reasonably strict) set of 8-12 or whatever laterals with the 70’s… Or does anyone have a vid of that ? (I’m seriously interested, not for arguments sake or anything… But you’d need some pretty damn short arms to do that and not have huge delts at the same time imo…)

That goes back to these guys acting like these are tiny supermen. I use 70’s for lateral raises. I would like to think my delts LOOK like it too.

I doubt any of these guys are using that much weight for exercises like that unless, as you pointed out, their arms are about 5 inches long.

If a 140 lbs person does an inverted iron cross – how is that any easier than the same guy doing 70 lbs lateral raise? I don’t know which is harder, but I am sure they are in the same ballpark.

Your delts are huge and strong, but remember, westclock wrote:

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

This is the object of discussion, and it is absurd.

[/quote]

Something about open and close-chained movements, I believe.

Look, gymnasts are stronger, through many factors reaching from training to genetic stuff like arm length, than any of us when performing exercises on the rings like the Iron Cross.

They have been specifically trained for this.

In the gym, where your body is usually fixed in place and you are moving
an external weight, the rules seem to be quite different.

I have no intention to rip on gymnasts or anything, I am merely curious if someone actually has a video of gymasts training with weights.

We would also have to factor in: Do some of them regularly train with weights (I wouldn’t know) ?
If so, then they’re strength in external-weight exercises probably comes from that and not from the rings. If they don’t train with weigths at all and then go into the gym and bench 300 pounds on their first day, then that’s a completely different story.

The whole “they are weaker/they are stronger” thing? Westclock thinks of strength in the weight room, and probably max strength to be specific. That’s a different thing than strength on the rings.

Also: Max strength (1-3) reps is a vastly different thing from moderate-high rep strength (for lack of a better term).
I can tell you that your gymnast will not be able to do 10 reps on the bench with 350 pounds. His triceps and pecs are too small, end of story.

In theory though he could lift more than 350 for one rep (if he were trained for that)… Since that doesn’t depend on muscle-mass as much as actual rep-work.

Then again, I’m not sure how his tiny joints and all that factor in…

[chitown34]

Wow, lots of rediculous assertions on both sides. Strength is pretty hard to gauge and is much more subjective than people think. Anyone who is certain that elite athletes under 150 pounds are weaker than the average 200 lb gym goer that eats fast food has never wrestled. When you are attempting to produce force in multiple planes with your entire body, size and weightroom stats mean a lot less than you think.

[Professor_X]

[quote]chitown34 wrote:
Wow, lots of rediculous assertions on both sides. Strength is pretty hard to gauge and is much more subjective than people think. Anyone who is certain that elite athletes under 150 pounds are weaker than the average 200 lb gym goer that eats fast food has never wrestled. When you are attempting to produce force in multiple planes with your entire body, size and weightroom stats mean a lot less than you think.[/quote]

It gets a hell of a lot more clear if people not into bodybuilding stayed the hell out of the BODYBUILDING FORUM.

How many times are bodybuilders jumping into threads in the Combat Sports forum to claim that people who are black belts are weak?

[chitown34]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
chitown34 wrote:
Wow, lots of rediculous assertions on both sides. Strength is pretty hard to gauge and is much more subjective than people think. Anyone who is certain that elite athletes under 150 pounds are weaker than the average 200 lb gym goer that eats fast food has never wrestled. When you are attempting to produce force in multiple planes with your entire body, size and weightroom stats mean a lot less than you think.

It gets a hell of a lot more clear if people not into bodybuilding stayed the hell out of the BODYBUILDING FORUM.

How many times are bodybuilders jumping into threads in the Combat Sports forum to claim that people who are black belts are weak?[/quote]

I’m currently using bodybuilding split to add 20-30 pounds and move up a weight class. I think it’s great for adding muscle. I don’t think that weightroom strength is the end-all be-all though, and when someone says an olympic gymnast is weaker than your average 200 lb gym goer it’s going to draw attention.

[Sentoguy]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Gael wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Did he mean 1 rep with 70 lbs db’s holding them 3-5 sec at the top?
That would be a joke.

I doubt that those gymnasts can do a standing (reasonably strict) set of 8-12 or whatever laterals with the 70’s… Or does anyone have a vid of that ? (I’m seriously interested, not for arguments sake or anything… But you’d need some pretty damn short arms to do that and not have huge delts at the same time imo…)

That goes back to these guys acting like these are tiny supermen. I use 70’s for lateral raises. I would like to think my delts LOOK like it too.

I doubt any of these guys are using that much weight for exercises like that unless, as you pointed out, their arms are about 5 inches long.

If a 140 lbs person does an inverted iron cross – how is that any easier than the same guy doing 70 lbs lateral raise? I don’t know which is harder, but I am sure they are in the same ballpark.

Your delts are huge and strong, but remember, westclock wrote:

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

This is the object of discussion, and it is absurd.

Something about open and close-chained movements, I believe.
[/quote]

The two exercises are also not the same from a biomechanical standpoint and require very different attributes to perform.

During an inverted cross the palms are supinated (meaning that the arm flexors are brought into the movement and the elbows “lock” straight). During a lateral raise, the palms are pronated, thus only the delts (and maybe traps depending on how high you are bringing the DB’s) perform the movement.

The laterals with equivalent of BW would be more difficult from a strength perspective, while the inverted cross would be more difficult from a balance and stability standpoint.

[Gael]

[quote]Westclock wrote:
Gael wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Did he mean 1 rep with 70 lbs db’s holding them 3-5 sec at the top?
That would be a joke.

I doubt that those gymnasts can do a standing (reasonably strict) set of 8-12 or whatever laterals with the 70’s… Or does anyone have a vid of that ? (I’m seriously interested, not for arguments sake or anything… But you’d need some pretty damn short arms to do that and not have huge delts at the same time imo…)

That goes back to these guys acting like these are tiny supermen. I use 70’s for lateral raises. I would like to think my delts LOOK like it too.

I doubt any of these guys are using that much weight for exercises like that unless, as you pointed out, their arms are about 5 inches long.

If a 140 lbs person does an inverted iron cross – how is that any easier than the same guy doing 70 lbs lateral raise? I don’t know which is harder, but I am sure they are in the same ballpark.

Your delts are huge and strong, but remember, westclock wrote:

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

This is the object of discussion, and it is absurd.

Agian strength is not “relative strength”.[/quote]

We are not talking about relative strength. We are talking about absolute strength. That is why I asked if you can do lateral raises with 70 lbs dumbbells. I didn’t ask if you could do half your bodyweight.

Do you realize how silly it is to talk about arm length? Strength is strength. Limb length will help or hurt your strength in every single lift. If long limbs mean you can’t lift as much as someone with short limbs, this means you are weaker than that person. It’s silly to say “But!! I’m strong for my limb length, LOL” while slamming those who say that they are strong for their bodyweight. Hopefully you will see that these are variations on a theme. What theme? The mediocre attacking the accomplished.

Strength is strength is strength. If your limbs are built such that you can lift a truck, that is strength. They do not divide your benchpress by humerus length at powerlifting competitions.

Shorter arm, shorter torque arm, less force. A tall guy doing a lateral raise with a 70 is significantly more force than a short guy doing an iron cross at 130 or 140 or what have you.

Wrong. Shorter arm, less torque, same force. Longer arm, more torque, same force. 70 lbs is 70 lbs. Whether your wingspan is 10 inches or 10 feet, you need to apply 70 lbs of force to lift the dumbbell, just like the 140 lbs gymnast applies 70 lbs of force to the ring. That is why the two feats of strength are equivalent.

By the way, I have extremely long arms which makes my deadlift more than twice my bench. I have never in my life complained, nor have I tried to say anything goofy like “Actually my bench is strong, I just have long arms.”

Long arms, short arms, tall man, short man – You take what you are given and make the most of it. The 5’4" gymnast with short arms who trains 6-7 hours a day throughout his entire childhood and wins the Olympics can say that he has done this. Can you say the same? Unless you win the Mr. Olympia anytime soon I don’t think so. But in the meantime, feel free to keep reminding us how you are better than elite athletes.

[Westclock]

[quote]gilesdm wrote:
Westclock wrote:

Olympic gymnasts are SKILLED, not strong, strong for their body weight fine, they are still weaker compared to the average 5’10 200 something pound male that lifts occasionally and eats fast food fairly often (average American).

hahahahaha! hahahahaha!! no, please stop… hahahaha! I can’t take it anymore… ha ha…

[/quote]

Yes and we all know how much your “educated” opinion is worth right ?

Out of 17 posts you’ve asked stupid questions about prohormones, and proclaimed

[quote]gilesdm wrote:
That was a great read; I have been looking for an article like this for a while. When ever I ask the question about alcohol I generally get a reply like.

"‘If you�??re dedicated, don’t drink’

And I don’t find this very helpful, as I’m not really that ‘dedicated’, I just like lifting weight for fun. "
[/quote]

If your just like to drink and lift for “fun” what are you even doing here ?

But by all means throw your opinions out there like they mean something.

[Westclock]

[quote]Gael wrote:
Westclock wrote:

Agian strength is not “relative strength”.

We are not talking about relative strength. We are talking about absolute strength. That is why I asked if you can do lateral raises with 70 lbs dumbbells. I didn’t ask if you could do half your bodyweight.

Do you realize how silly it is to talk about arm length? Strength is strength. Limb length will help or hurt your strength in every single lift. If long limbs mean you can’t lift as much as someone with short limbs, this means you are weaker than that person. It’s silly to say “But!! I’m strong for my limb length, LOL” while slamming those who say that they are strong for their bodyweight. Hopefully you will see that these are variations on a theme. What theme? The mediocre attacking the accomplished.

Strength is strength is strength. If your limbs are built such that you can lift a truck, that is strength. They do not divide your benchpress by humerus length at powerlifting competitions.

Shorter arm, shorter torque arm, less force. A tall guy doing a lateral raise with a 70 is significantly more force than a short guy doing an iron cross at 130 or 140 or what have you.

Wrong. Shorter arm, less torque, same force. Longer arm, more torque, same force. 70 lbs is 70 lbs. Whether your wingspan is 10 inches or 10 feet, you need to apply 70 lbs of force to lift the dumbbell, just like the 140 lbs gymnast applies 70 lbs of force to the ring. That is why the two feats of strength are equivalent.

By the way, I have extremely long arms which makes my deadlift more than twice my bench. I have never in my life complained, nor have I tried to say anything goofy like “Actually my bench is strong, I just have long arms.”

Long arms, short arms, tall man, short man – You take what you are given and make the most of it. The 5’4" gymnast with short arms who trains 6-7 hours a day throughout his entire childhood and wins the Olympics can say that he has done this. Can you say the same? Unless you win the Mr. Olympia anytime soon I don’t think so. But in the meantime, feel free to keep reminding us how you are better than elite athletes.[/quote]

I already answered your comment about can I do a 70 pound lateral, Im not sure your reading all of my posts.

The answer was, I have not attempted 70 pound laterals, only 60, but Im quite sure I could given a little practice.

And it is not silly to talk about arm length, this “70 pounds for an iron cross” was basically pulled out of thin air.

And then compared to a 6 foot tall guy doing a lateral, its not very closely related. If your trying to compare the strength required for an iron cross to another lift, you do have to account for limb length.

Also you dont have “extremely long arms” your 5’8

And I didn’t say better, I said stronger, again makes me think your not actually reading anything but my last post.

I suppose you think all professional athletes are stronger than all other people ?

Here lets do a good one, how about football players in the NFL, according to you since they train all day they should be stronger than me easily right ?

Well what about the quarterback ? receivers ? running backs ? Hell what about the kicker ?

They are skilled at a very particular area, as are gymnasts, you guys act like just because your in the Olympics your stronger than anyone not in the Olympics.

This isn’t the case, and is a completely juvenile assumption.

Im not going to post in this thread anymore as it has clearly just become a “tall guys vs. short guys” thread under the guise of talking about gymnasts.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Westclock wrote:
Gael wrote:
Westclock wrote:

Agian strength is not “relative strength”.

We are not talking about relative strength. We are talking about absolute strength. That is why I asked if you can do lateral raises with 70 lbs dumbbells. I didn’t ask if you could do half your bodyweight.

Do you realize how silly it is to talk about arm length? Strength is strength. Limb length will help or hurt your strength in every single lift. If long limbs mean you can’t lift as much as someone with short limbs, this means you are weaker than that person. It’s silly to say “But!! I’m strong for my limb length, LOL” while slamming those who say that they are strong for their bodyweight. Hopefully you will see that these are variations on a theme. What theme? The mediocre attacking the accomplished.

Strength is strength is strength. If your limbs are built such that you can lift a truck, that is strength. They do not divide your benchpress by humerus length at powerlifting competitions.

Shorter arm, shorter torque arm, less force. A tall guy doing a lateral raise with a 70 is significantly more force than a short guy doing an iron cross at 130 or 140 or what have you.

Wrong. Shorter arm, less torque, same force. Longer arm, more torque, same force. 70 lbs is 70 lbs. Whether your wingspan is 10 inches or 10 feet, you need to apply 70 lbs of force to lift the dumbbell, just like the 140 lbs gymnast applies 70 lbs of force to the ring. That is why the two feats of strength are equivalent.

By the way, I have extremely long arms which makes my deadlift more than twice my bench. I have never in my life complained, nor have I tried to say anything goofy like “Actually my bench is strong, I just have long arms.”

Long arms, short arms, tall man, short man – You take what you are given and make the most of it. The 5’4" gymnast with short arms who trains 6-7 hours a day throughout his entire childhood and wins the Olympics can say that he has done this. Can you say the same? Unless you win the Mr. Olympia anytime soon I don’t think so. But in the meantime, feel free to keep reminding us how you are better than elite athletes.

I already answered your comment about can I do a 70 pound lateral, Im not sure your reading all of my posts.

The answer was, I have not attempted 70 pound laterals, only 60, but Im quite sure I could given a little practice.

And it is not silly to talk about arm length, this “70 pounds for an iron cross” was basically pulled out of thin air.

And then compared to a 6 foot tall guy doing a lateral, its not very closely related. If your trying to compare the strength required for an iron cross to another lift, you do have to account for limb length.

Also you dont have “extremely long arms” your 5’8

And I didn’t say better, I said stronger, again makes me think your not actually reading anything but my last post.

I suppose you think all professional athletes are stronger than all other people ?

Here lets do a good one, how about football players in the NFL, according to you since they train all day they should be stronger than me easily right ?

Well what about the quarterback ? receivers ? running backs ? Hell what about the kicker ?

They are skilled at a very particular area, as are gymnasts, you guys act like just because your in the Olympics your stronger than anyone not in the Olympics.

This isn’t the case, and is a completely juvenile assumption.

Im not going to post in this thread anymore as it has clearly just become a “tall guys vs. short guys” thread under the guise of talking about gymnasts.

[/quote]

Good post.

[Gael]

[quote]Westclock wrote:
Gael wrote:
Westclock wrote:

Agian strength is not “relative strength”.

We are not talking about relative strength. We are talking about absolute strength. That is why I asked if you can do lateral raises with 70 lbs dumbbells. I didn’t ask if you could do half your bodyweight.

Do you realize how silly it is to talk about arm length? Strength is strength. Limb length will help or hurt your strength in every single lift. If long limbs mean you can’t lift as much as someone with short limbs, this means you are weaker than that person. It’s silly to say “But!! I’m strong for my limb length, LOL” while slamming those who say that they are strong for their bodyweight. Hopefully you will see that these are variations on a theme. What theme? The mediocre attacking the accomplished.

Strength is strength is strength. If your limbs are built such that you can lift a truck, that is strength. They do not divide your benchpress by humerus length at powerlifting competitions.

Shorter arm, shorter torque arm, less force. A tall guy doing a lateral raise with a 70 is significantly more force than a short guy doing an iron cross at 130 or 140 or what have you.

Wrong. Shorter arm, less torque, same force. Longer arm, more torque, same force. 70 lbs is 70 lbs. Whether your wingspan is 10 inches or 10 feet, you need to apply 70 lbs of force to lift the dumbbell, just like the 140 lbs gymnast applies 70 lbs of force to the ring. That is why the two feats of strength are equivalent.

By the way, I have extremely long arms which makes my deadlift more than twice my bench. I have never in my life complained, nor have I tried to say anything goofy like “Actually my bench is strong, I just have long arms.”

Long arms, short arms, tall man, short man – You take what you are given and make the most of it. The 5’4" gymnast with short arms who trains 6-7 hours a day throughout his entire childhood and wins the Olympics can say that he has done this. Can you say the same? Unless you win the Mr. Olympia anytime soon I don’t think so. But in the meantime, feel free to keep reminding us how you are better than elite athletes.

I already answered your comment about can I do a 70 pound lateral, Im not sure your reading all of my posts.

The answer was, I have not attempted 70 pound laterals, only 60, but Im quite sure I could given a little practice.

And it is not silly to talk about arm length, this “70 pounds for an iron cross” was basically pulled out of thin air.

And then compared to a 6 foot tall guy doing a lateral, its not very closely related. If your trying to compare the strength required for an iron cross to another lift, you do have to account for limb length.

Also you dont have “extremely long arms” your 5’8

And I didn’t say better, I said stronger, again makes me think your not actually reading anything but my last post.

I suppose you think all professional athletes are stronger than all other people ?

Here lets do a good one, how about football players in the NFL, according to you since they train all day they should be stronger than me easily right ?

Well what about the quarterback ? receivers ? running backs ? Hell what about the kicker ?

They are skilled at a very particular area, as are gymnasts, you guys act like just because your in the Olympics your stronger than anyone not in the Olympics.

This isn’t the case, and is a completely juvenile assumption.

Im not going to post in this thread anymore as it has clearly just become a “tall guys vs. short guys” thread under the guise of talking about gymnasts.

[/quote]

Wrong on all counts. I can only assume you failed to comprehend my post. I am done here.

[tribunaldude]

As much as westclock reminds me of the troll “rctriplefresh5” on youtube, he speaks the truth here.
YOu can’t compare the two. Are the gymnasts strong for doing the iron cross effortlessly? sure!
IS a 250 pound guy who can do straight arm pulldowns (not lateral raises btw, the equivalent to the iron cross is the straight arm pulldown) with BW even for low reps strong…sure!

Is one stronger than the other…who the fuck knows or gives a damn. If one style of training produces better physique results for you, then stick with that.

On the flip side, if said OL gymnast physique gets you a hotter girlfriend than a bber’s physique can get you, stick with that (and yes, the OL gymnast dudes do get better gals than most of the posters here)…HOWEVER, the average poster here is just as unlikely to get a gymnasts physique as a competitive bber’s physique. So stick with whatever style of training improves YOUR physique the way you want. or closest.

[quote]Gael wrote:
Wrong on all counts. I can only assume you failed to comprehend my post. I am done here.[/quote]

[Gael]

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
As much westclock reminds me of the troll “rctriplefresh5” on youtube, he speaks the truth here.
YOu can’t compare the two. Are the gymnasts strong for doing the iron cross effortlessly? sure!
IS a 250 pound guy who can do straight arm pulldowns (not lateral raises btw, the equivalent to the iron cross is the straight arm pulldown) with BW even for low reps strong…sure!

Is one stronger than the other…who the fuck knows or gives a damn. If one style of training produces better physique results for you, then stick with that.

On the flip side, if said OL gymnast physique gets you a hotter girlfriend than a bber’s physique can get you, stick with that (and yes, the OL gymnast dudes do get better gals than most of the posters here)…HOWEVER, the average poster here is just as unlikely to get a gymnasts physique as a competitive bber’s physique. So stick with whatever style of training improves YOUR physique the way you want. or closest.

Gael wrote:
Wrong on all counts. I can only assume you failed to comprehend my post. I am done here.

[/quote]

Westclock was the one who started the comparisons, not me.

Westclock was the one who misspoke and started talking about iron crosses, when the move I mentioned was the inverted cross, so yes, I am correct to speak of lateral raises.

And we are not comparing elite gymnasts to 250 lbs elite bodybuilder. I am addressing, Westclock’s silly statement that the average fast food junkie is stronger than an olympic gymnast. It is this point that I am addressing, and this point alone.

Occasionally we get the skinny troll who claims that girls will take his hot abz over a jacked bodybuilder any day. For all the retorts of “Even if that were true, who gives a shit, why would you train for other people, let alone girls” (which is a lie, there isn’t a person here who doesn’t give a shit what others think), it’s fucking hilarious that the chosen method of denigration of olympic gymnasts is to point out that girls don’t like that kind of physique.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Gael wrote:
tribunaldude wrote:
As much westclock reminds me of the troll “rctriplefresh5” on youtube, he speaks the truth here.
YOu can’t compare the two. Are the gymnasts strong for doing the iron cross effortlessly? sure!
IS a 250 pound guy who can do straight arm pulldowns (not lateral raises btw, the equivalent to the iron cross is the straight arm pulldown) with BW even for low reps strong…sure!

Is one stronger than the other…who the fuck knows or gives a damn. If one style of training produces better physique results for you, then stick with that.

On the flip side, if said OL gymnast physique gets you a hotter girlfriend than a bber’s physique can get you, stick with that (and yes, the OL gymnast dudes do get better gals than most of the posters here)…HOWEVER, the average poster here is just as unlikely to get a gymnasts physique as a competitive bber’s physique. So stick with whatever style of training improves YOUR physique the way you want. or closest.

Gael wrote:
Wrong on all counts. I can only assume you failed to comprehend my post. I am done here.

Westclock was the one who started the comparisons, not me.

Westclock was the one who misspoke and started talking about iron crosses, when the move I mentioned was the inverted cross, so yes, I am correct to speak of lateral raises.

And we are not comparing elite gymnasts to 250 lbs elite bodybuilder. I am addressing, Westclock’s silly statement that the average fast food junkie is stronger than an olympic gymnast. It is this point that I am addressing, and this point alone.

Occasionally we get the skinny troll who claims that girls will take his hot abz over a jacked bodybuilder any day. For all the retorts of “Even if that were true, who gives a shit, why would you train for other people, let alone girls” (which is a lie, there isn’t a person here who doesn’t give a shit what others think), it’s fucking hilarious that the chosen method of denigration of olympic gymnasts is to point out that girls don’t like that kind of physique.

[/quote]

Well, being short is an obstacle. It may not be much of one, but I don’t think anyone would actually deny that being extremely short hampers progress with the opposite sex. Most Olympic gymnasts are very short even if they do have 15" arms (which again is not that big so I fail to see why this thread is even in this forum).

[tribunaldude]

This thread only reached this point cos rctriplefresh5 brought up his lanky-loser-syndrome insecurities on page 1 with a sideways comment hinting that OL-gymnasts do not have hot girlfriends - which doesn’t make any sense to any former student athlete who went to college and saw the gymnasts racking up more poon than the average built gym goer.

Anyhoo, the OP made a stupid comment on how OL gymnasts achieved their biceps development, which brought out everyone’s insecurities (lanky dudes, fat dudes, short dudes, bald dudes) in a cavalcade of posts right up till this point (and also confirmed my suspicions about a certain poster’s identity. Pics available but will be posted at my discretion).

Cheers…yo.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Gael wrote:
tribunaldude wrote:
As much westclock reminds me of the troll “rctriplefresh5” on youtube, he speaks the truth here.
YOu can’t compare the two. Are the gymnasts strong for doing the iron cross effortlessly? sure!
IS a 250 pound guy who can do straight arm pulldowns (not lateral raises btw, the equivalent to the iron cross is the straight arm pulldown) with BW even for low reps strong…sure!

Is one stronger than the other…who the fuck knows or gives a damn. If one style of training produces better physique results for you, then stick with that.

On the flip side, if said OL gymnast physique gets you a hotter girlfriend than a bber’s physique can get you, stick with that (and yes, the OL gymnast dudes do get better gals than most of the posters here)…HOWEVER, the average poster here is just as unlikely to get a gymnasts physique as a competitive bber’s physique. So stick with whatever style of training improves YOUR physique the way you want. or closest.

Gael wrote:
Wrong on all counts. I can only assume you failed to comprehend my post. I am done here.

Westclock was the one who started the comparisons, not me.

Westclock was the one who misspoke and started talking about iron crosses, when the move I mentioned was the inverted cross, so yes, I am correct to speak of lateral raises.

And we are not comparing elite gymnasts to 250 lbs elite bodybuilder. I am addressing, Westclock’s silly statement that the average fast food junkie is stronger than an olympic gymnast. It is this point that I am addressing, and this point alone.

Occasionally we get the skinny troll who claims that girls will take his hot abz over a jacked bodybuilder any day. For all the retorts of “Even if that were true, who gives a shit, why would you train for other people, let alone girls” (which is a lie, there isn’t a person here who doesn’t give a shit what others think), it’s fucking hilarious that the chosen method of denigration of olympic gymnasts is to point out that girls don’t like that kind of physique.

Well, being short is an obstacle. It may not be much of one, but I don’t think anyone would actually deny that being extremely short hampers progress with the opposite sex. Most Olympic gymnasts are very short even if they do have 15" arms (which again is not that big so I fail to see why this thread is even in this forum).[/quote]

[Tumbles]

Not that it really matters… but my brother does college gymnastics and I did gymnastics until sophomore year in highschool.

Just a few things:

1. There is some weight training going on in the programs.

2. They are not exceptionally strong (especially not with ORM, but they are pretty decent at doing high reps), but I would say they are stronger at lifting than the average person you would find in the gym (though that honestly isn’t saying much).

3. The physiques that they get are largely a combination of training 25-30 or even more hours a week and that the majority of successful gymnasts are short, which makes them look muscular more easily.

4. This entire thread has turned into such a stupid clusterfuck I don’t even know why I’m posting this!

[Spry]

[quote]Westclock wrote:
this is mostly because the average male gymnast is 5’6" and 140.[/quote]

I’m just a fucking huge gymnast! Love it.

[belligerent]

The gymnasts’ biceps are genetic. They have extremely long muscle bellies in their arms, which confers superior leverage relative to muscle volume, as well as an aesthetically pleasing appearance.

It’s the same arrangement that sprinters have in their glutes and hamstrings. Many of these guys aren’t really that well developed, and would be far bigger and stronger if they abandoned gymnastics training altogether and used bodybuilding methods instead. Gymnastics training will not give you the physique of an elite gymnast.

[tribunaldude]

Not really, I feel more knowledgeable now, and have all the tools needed to downplay ANYONE’s achievements!
Next time someone tells me how much he can bench-press, curl, lateral raise or squat, I’ll need an arm-length measurement - shoulder to wrist - and a leg length measurement along with height/weight, and factor in wrist/ankle diameters, bone density, fiber ratio, cranial volume, dick length/girth and the number of sexual partners that person has had before I can reach an educated conclusion about whether that person’s achievements are worthy of praise.

[quote]Tumbles wrote:
4) This entire thread has turned into such a stupid clusterfuck I don’t even know why I’m posting this![/quote]