So me and a couple of buddies were talkin about this the other night: if you have a lot of muscle mass, should you be expected to do more chin-ups, or fewer chin-ups? I say: you have more mass, yes, but that means your biceps (which are small in comparison to other muscle groups) have to do more work to lift all that mass–so more muscle mass would make it more difficult to do chin-ups.
So how does this work?
Test your max chin-up now, put on 50 lbs of muscle and test your max again; then come here and tell us 
By the way, I’ve never seen pro-BBers do sets of 50 chins, while Poliquin reports very lean (female) gymnasts doing more than 60 pull-ups!
You’re comparing apples and oranges. Mass vs. strength. Who cares honestly, just do more chins than your buddies!
Speaking of chins…howbout the 300 workout, 25 to start and 25 to end
Any mass added to your biceps or lats/back should help you do more pullups. Anything added to other muscle groups would make it harder.
Let’s look at some test-based numbers.
200 pound man, 10 pullups
A 3% increase in load typically translates to 1 less rep in most ranges (anywhere from about 4-20 reps, there is about a 2.5 to 4% drop in load for every additional rep)
So a 200 pounder who ads 6 pounds up to 206 would drop to 9 reps if they didn’t get any stonger (in general).
How much stronger would you expect someone to get if they gained 6 pounds of muscle?
In the bench press, a raw lifter, natural etc would typically add 2 pounds for every pound of balanced muscle added to their physique.
I would estimate that a totally balanced physique would result in a max chin, including body weight moved of about 75 to 80% of max bench press (200 pounder benches 400, and can do a chin with body weight plus 100 pounds or maybe a little more.
So 6 pounds of balanced BW should probably increase 1RM strength by about 9-10 pounds, or about 5% while BW only 3%.
So if someone gained balanced, 100% lean bodyweight, they should be able to do more chins or pull-ups.
Does adding more muscle mass to your legs make it harder to squat?
Bigger muscles = more strength (to a certain point of course; a point most people never have to worry about)
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Does adding more muscle mass to your legs make it harder to squat?
Bigger muscles = more strength (to a certain point of course; a point most people never have to worry about)[/quote]
Ya but bigger legs would make pullups harder.
[quote]dankid wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
Does adding more muscle mass to your legs make it harder to squat?
Bigger muscles = more strength (to a certain point of course; a point most people never have to worry about)
Ya but bigger legs would make pullups harder.
[/quote]
You’ve missed the point.
If you add more muscle to your body you will have added strength. Obviously if someone tests their pullup max then adds 20 pounds, but while doing so, never does a pullup, than it will be more difficult to do as many pullups as it was 20 pounds ago.
Obviously someone needs to keep doing pullups while they gain weight if they want to become more efficient at pullups at their new bodyweight.
My squat analogy was made to point out that when doing a squat the person also has to move the weight in their legs in addition to their upper body weight.
More muscle is never a bad thing for someone who is concerned with getting bigger and stronger… (I’m a genious aint I 
lol)
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
(I’m a genious aint I lol)[/quote]
Ummmmmm? I guess…
I dont wanna start a debate on here, but what is this hypothetical point at which more muscle doesn’t = more strength? And why would most people never reach this point?
Initially when someone starts out as a 150lb kid putting on more muscle (all over) as he/she gets more advanced that person will be able to do more pullups, more pushups really anything involving body weight. At a certain point though there will start to be diminishing returns where more muscle will hinder more pullups. I think for each person that threshold will be different but it definitely exists. That strength to body weight ratio is always greatest among the relatively lighter guys.
You just can’t accurately predict someone with more muscle mass will be able to do more pull-ups than someone with less muscle mass. Not just by looking at them, a lot of factors come into play with relative strength.
You can argue for both sides, just like you did yourself in your original post, it’s not going to set in stone.
[quote]dankid wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
(I’m a genious aint I lol)
Ummmmmm? I guess…
I dont wanna start a debate on here, but what is this hypothetical point at which more muscle doesn’t = more strength? And why would most people never reach this point?
[/quote]
Actually it would be accurate to say that it DOES seem like you want to start a debate every chance you get, especially hypothetical ones.
If he even answers your question back, which I hope he doesn’t, this will no longer be even mildly related to the OP’s question, somehow it’ll be a debate about muscle mass and strength correlations, which will probably involve a bunch of on-the-spot-made-up statistic throwing and will not end well.
I’m currently 221 lbs at around 15% BF. WHen I was 251 lbs, I could do 4 sets of 20 pull ups. CHin over the bar at the top and full stretch at the bottom. Now I do 5 sets of 15 with a 50 lb. bar hanging from my waist followed up with 6-8 bodyweight pull ups after I drop the 50 lb dumbell. I get most of my pulling power from my lats till about the last 3-4 reps when my lats reach muscle failure and I have to use other means, then my arms become incorporated.
Even for chins. I focus on pulling my elbows back with as little amount of biceps power as possible. I’ve always had a strong back though, so I think it depends on the individual. If I want to, I can yank out between 30-35 pull ups at 221 lbs, so the answer is NO. Just because you are lighter, and carrying LESS muscle mass, doesn’t mean that you can lift your bodyweight more times…
The thing with pull ups is that any weak part of the chain gives out first. If your grip is weak then your pull up performance is going to be weak. You may have plenty of muscle , but if your hand and forearm strength aren’t there then you won’t be able to do pulls/chins and that is the major problem with that lift.Few lifts(besides deadlifts) are affected so much by grip stength.So the point here is lighter guys don’t have to grip as much as bigger guys and thats waht gives out first.
[quote]Bwick wrote:
So me and a couple of buddies were talkin about this the other night: if you have a lot of muscle mass, should you be expected to do more chin-ups, or fewer chin-ups? I say: you have more mass, yes, but that means your biceps (which are small in comparison to other muscle groups) have to do more work to lift all that mass–so more muscle mass would make it more difficult to do chin-ups.
So how does this work?[/quote]
depends on where the mass is located. If it’s in your lats, you’ll do more pullups. If it’s in your legs, you’ll do less.
sounds like your trying to justify your pathetic pullup number by saying your bodyweight is too heavy
l met two pole dancers at the gym
today who 3 months ago could do no chin ups and can now do 5 “dead hang, bar to great tits, emasculate 99% of viewing males” chin ups…
so how many can you currently do
Since I trained my pullups and chinups I’ve been able to complete about the same reps. One time I remember I was in the school bus and completed 20 straight pullups, which I think I wouldn’t be able to do now, but my bodyweight is up by more than 30lbs since then.
[quote]dankid wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
(I’m a genious aint I lol)
Ummmmmm? I guess…
I dont wanna start a debate on here, but what is this hypothetical point at which more muscle doesn’t = more strength? And why would most people never reach this point?
[/quote]
I’ve read some of your post history so I will not get into a conversation with you any further than this particular post.
I’ll answer the second half of your question because the first is too obvious to explain without sounding condescending.
Do you really not beleive that most people in the world will never come close to the maximum amount of muscle is it possible for their body to gain, regardless of drug use.
Same goes for strength.
The reason is because most people do not have the drive, dedication, injury prevention skill, luxury of time. I’d say that someone who is only missing one of those will not come close.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
dankid wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
Do you really not beleive that most people in the world will never come close to the maximum amount of muscle is it possible for their body to gain, regardless of drug use.
Same goes for strength.
The reason is because most people do not have the drive, dedication, injury prevention skill, luxury of time. I’d say that someone who is only missing one of those will not come close. [/quote]
Like I said I dont want to start a debate, so im not going to respond after this, but… I think you have it backwards. For a lot of people they will never reach there maximum potential strength where they can not add more strength without adding more muscle. On the other hand, more muscle will almost always = more strength/endurance. There is not point at which this is not true (Unless you know otherwise) The only time more muscle wouldn’t = more strength would be sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, but this would still mean more endurance (because theres a bigger gas tank basically) and relating to the OP question whether it be myofibril or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, there is potential for this to help with pullups.
All in all, I think what matters is that if you want to do more pullups, then do more pullups. You cant just train curls and bench, and eat to gain weight and expect your pullup numbers to go up.
[quote]dankid wrote:
All in all, I think what matters is that if you want to do more pullups, then do more pullups. You cant just train curls and bench, and eat to gain weight and expect your pullup numbers to go up.[/quote]
Agreed