Pull up and dip strength

I know I already posted, but I have been re-evaluating my goals. I'm new to gymnastics training and this is a very exciting time.

My question to you is this. If I were to focus solely on isometric movements like Handstands, Lsits, both levers, and planches, would I develop the strength to eventually master moves like high volume pull ups, dips, and skills like muscle ups and handstand push ups? Is this an approach anyone uses?

I don't think that is a wise thing to do. Static training has only a little carry-over to dynamic training. If you really want to achieve those things you will need to do both dynamic and static training.

It's best to do both isometric and kinetic exercises instead of just statics. To answer your question, I know that FL increases pull-up strength and PL + BL increases dip strength. HSPUs may or may not come from just training HS and PL and you should be able to do a fast MU, but not a slow one if you just practiced those statics you mentioned. Just training statics is not a good approach really.

There are many nuances to what I'm about to say, but I think its fair to say that, for all practical purposes, the dynamic exercises will promote hypertrophy, while the static exercises will maximize the force output of your current muscle mass. So you'll see that the statics will allow you to make the most of what you've got and will increase strength to bodyweight ratio, while the dynamic exercises will allow you to grow more muscle tissue in the long term, which will in turn be recruited maximally by the static exercises, and so on and so forth. You get the picture. Static and dynamic exercises are complimentary, something that Coach already stated way back in Building the Gymnastic Body.

Since many, many coaches and athletes have found this compound approach to be effective, I'd say that the empirical evidence is in favour of continuing this practice, but feel free to experiment.

Your best approach, quite honestly, is to get started with your Foundation training.

Ravn said:

There are many nuances to what I'm about to say, but I think its fair to say that, for all practical purposes, the dynamic exercises will promote hypertrophy, while the static exercises will maximize the force output of your current muscle mass. So you'll see that the statics will allow you to make the most of what you've got and will increase strength to bodyweight ratio, while the dynamic exercises will allow you to grow more muscle tissue in the long term, which will in turn be recruited maximally by the static exercises, and so on and so forth. You get the picture. Static and dynamic exercises are complimentary, something that Coach already stated way back in Building the Gymnastic Body.

Since many, many coaches and athletes have found this compound approach to be effective, I'd say that the empirical evidence is in favour of continuing this practice, but feel free to experiment.

I think when you say 'dynamic' you just mean kinetic because dynamic refers to explosive or powerful movements like plyometrics. Actually, both kinetic and static exercises can result in hypertrophy, not just statics. It depends on the rep range or TUT as well as other factors. Also, statics only build/maximize strength at one specific angle and ~ 15 degrees away, while kinetic exercises build strength throughout the whole ROM it passes through. So you really can't say that statics maximize force output of your muscles more than kinetic exercises.

B1214N said:

I think when you say 'dynamic' you just mean kinetic because dynamic refers to explosive or powerful movements like plyometrics. Actually, both kinetic and static exercises can result in hypertrophy, not just statics. It depends on the rep range or TUT as well as other factors. Also, statics only build/maximize strength at one specific angle and ~ 15 degrees away, while kinetic exercises build strength throughout the whole ROM it passes through. So you really can't say that statics maximize force output of your muscles more than kinetic exercises.

Ok, lets use the kinetic/isometric terminology then, although I'm not keen on 'kinetic' since to me it implies that movement is performed using momentum, following the definition of kinetic energy.

Like I said, there are nuances, but I think we can agree the kinetic movements are at least more effective at building mass than isometrics. There's a reason powerlifters and body builders look the way they do - As far as I'm aware, this is due to the microtrauma that occurs to muscle fibers when moved through full or close to full ROM under heavy load, which in turn triggers repair and adaptation (growth). This does not, again as far as I'm aware, occur to the same EXTENT in isometrics, which is not to say that it doesn't occur at all. Still, an isometric-only program would be a poor choice for hypertrophy, and I think we can also agree that at least a moderate amount of hypertrophy would be beneficial for reaching more advanced GST goals. Hypertrophy has other benefits too, but that's a different discussion. Regarding force output, I think it is sort of common knowledge that short-hold isometrics and, yes, very low-rep training increase strength through neural adaptations, thus maximising force output at a given muscle mass without inducing much growth. If this wasn't the case, why would we bother training isometrics? We could just achieve the fundamental static positions by training kinetic exercises, yet in my experience this is not a feasible approach.

But you are right that for the purpose of the OP, the strength that is achieved in the isometric holds he mentions may not carry over tremendously well to his kinetic exercises, since they are different skills. If I was the OP, I'd use F1 to reach the goals (what a surprise, I am!), and if he wants to get the muscle up and doesn't already have it, I'd use exaggerated ROM on the pulling exercises, so as to really begin working the MU transition as an integral part of the RC exercises.

Jandzel, if you start training gymnastics properly you will get freaking strong. A look around this forum will get you an idea. But honestly you have set training goals to do many pull-ups, dips and such, you should practice for that spesifically. Although there is a lot of carryover between training, one simple truth of training is that you get good at what you practice at. If you want to do high rep pull-ups, start doing lots of them and your numbers will improve a lot within months.

Ravn said:

Ok, lets use the kinetic/isometric terminology then, although I'm not keen on 'kinetic' since to me it implies that movement is performed using momentum, following the definition of kinetic energy.

Like I said, there are nuances, but I think we can agree the kinetic movements are at least more effective at building mass than isometrics. There's a reason powerlifters and body builders look the way they do - As far as I'm aware, this is due to the microtrauma that occurs to muscle fibers when moved through full or close to full ROM under heavy load, which in turn triggers repair and adaptation (growth). This does not, again as far as I'm aware, occur to the same EXTENT in isometrics, which is not to say that it doesn't occur at all. Still, an isometric-only program would be a poor choice for hypertrophy, and I think we can also agree that at least a moderate amount of hypertrophy would be beneficial for reaching more advanced GST goals. Hypertrophy has other benefits too, but that's a different discussion. Regarding force output, I think it is sort of common knowledge that short-hold isometrics and, yes, very low-rep training increase strength through neural adaptations, thus maximising force output at a given muscle mass without inducing much growth. If this wasn't the case, why would we bother training isometrics? We could just achieve the fundamental static positions by training kinetic exercises, yet in my experience this is not a feasible approach.

But you are right that for the purpose of the OP, the strength that is achieved in the isometric holds he mentions may not carry over tremendously well to his kinetic exercises, since they are different skills. If I was the OP, I'd use F1 to reach the goals (what a surprise, I am!), and if he wants to get the muscle up and doesn't already have it, I'd use exaggerated ROM on the pulling exercises, so as to really begin working the MU transition as an integral part of the RC exercises.

I don't disagree with the fact that kinetic (concentric + eccentric) movements promote more hypertrophy than isometrics. I still don't fully agree with what you implied that isometrics maximize force output more than kinetic exercises at a given muscle mass unless you meant at a specific angle. You can just do low rep high intensity kinetic exercises to maximize force output throughout a ROM without producing much mass whereas you would need to do isometrics at at least several joint angles to sort of maximize force output.

It is possible to achieve the FSPs by just doing relevant kinetic exercises that pass through that joint angle. Remember that a concentric contraction is stronger than an isometric contraction so if you can move through a position without momentum then you are strong enough to hold that position. So for example, you can definitely achieve a FL if all you do is progress with front pulls. Of course just training isometrics will get you to the FSPs faster than just doing kinetic exercises because you are spending more time with building strength at that specific angle/position. 

We both agree that kinetic and isometric exercises compliment each other, just that I thought your first post sounded like you meant only kinetic movements built mass and only isometrics were for maximizing force output of the muscle mass built from the kinetic exercises.

Ravn said:

(...)  dynamic exercises (...) static exercises (...)  statics (...)  dynamic exercises (...)  static exercises (...) Static and dynamic exercises (...)

B1214N said:

(...) 'dynamic' (...) mean kinetic (...) dynamic refers to explosive (...) plyometrics (...)  kinetic and static exercises (...) statics (...) statics (...) kinetic exercises (...) statics (...) kinetic exercises.

Ravn said:

(...) kinetic/isometric  (...) 'kinetic' (...) to me (...) movement (...) momentum (...) kinetic energy. (...) kinetic movements (...) isometrics (...) isometrics (...) isometric-only (...) isometrics (...) isometrics (...) kinetic exercises (...) the isometric (...) kinetic exercises

B1214N said:

(...) kinetic (concentric + eccentric) movements (...) isometrics (...) isometrics (...) kinetic exercises (...) specific (...) kinetic exercises (...) isometrics (...) kinetic exercises (...) concentric (...) isometric (...) isometrics (...) kinetic exercises (...) specific (...) kinetic and isometric exercises (...) only kinetic movements (...) kinetic exercises.

98.67% of all upsets can be traced to a misunderstanding on the definition of some words...

Could you guys please take a second and precisely define what you mean by:

** Kinetic

** Dynamic

** Static

** Isometric

** Explosive

** momentum

** Kinetic energy

** Isometrics

You will find out that you are both arguing when you are already in agreement!

And the rest of us might learn something useful too!

Thank you for all the input. I plan to implement both isometric and dynamic strengthening exercises into my routine. Infact, I did so today, and it worked out well!

FredInChina said:

98.67% of all upsets can be traced to a misunderstanding on the definition of some words...

Could you guys please take a second and precisely define what you mean by:

** Kinetic

** Dynamic

** Static

** Isometric

** Explosive

** momentum

** Kinetic energy

** Isometrics

You will find out that you are both arguing when you are already in agreement!

And the rest of us might learn something useful too!

 

Define? No way. If we find that we all agree, what are we going to talk about?

B1214N said:

It is possible to achieve the FSPs by just doing relevant kinetic exercises that pass through that joint angle. 

This is false.  There isn't enough time under tension for the joints to adapt by simply passing through the straight arm segments.  Also, if you ever attempted to do this without any joint conditioning or isometric progressions, you would certainly end up with an injury.

Are you sure? A concentric contraction is stronger than an isometric contraction, so based on that one should be strong enough to hold at a position he/she goes through in a concentric movement. I'm pretty sure someone capable of a front pull would be able to hold a FL too even if he/she never trained isometrics.

It won't end in injury if you progress at the right pace just like how training isometrics can injure your joints too if you rush your progress. You must start with easier exercises where you can do high reps to condition the joints and then safely progress from there.

 Well, you could do a blended exercise that basically worked lock off at a position.

For instance, hold FL at the beginning of every FL pullup or Planche at every planche pushup. Hang L before every Hanging LegLift.

B1214N said:

A concentric contraction is stronger than an isometric contraction, 

 

What makes you say this?

EDIT: are you meaning to say that a concentric contraction requires more strength than an isometric contraction to complete or that a person is stronger concentrically than isometrically?

The strength of the contraction isn't the issue, it's the time under tension at a specific joint angle.  Planche for instance, puts significant strain on the shoulder girdle, the wrists and the elbow/bicep tendons when locked out.  This level of tension does not happen in the other portions of a planche pushup, and can only be developed completely by practicing the static straight-arm planche progressions.

This is why bent-arm strength and straight-arm strength are developed using static and dynamic movements in the foundation series, as they both need to be trained.

Jonathan Cathcart said:

What makes you say this?

 

EDIT: are you meaning to say that a concentric contraction requires more strength than an isometric contraction to complete or that a person is stronger concentrically than isometrically?

I meant to say that a concentric contraction requires more strength than an isometric contraction.

karimoo said:

The strength of the contraction isn't the issue, it's the time under tension at a specific joint angle.  Planche for instance, puts significant strain on the shoulder girdle, the wrists and the elbow/bicep tendons when locked out.  This level of tension does not happen in the other portions of a planche pushup, and can only be developed completely by practicing the static straight-arm planche progressions.

 

This is why bent-arm strength and straight-arm strength are developed using static and dynamic movements in the foundation series, as they both need to be trained.

I was not specifically talking about bent arm exercises, just exercises that are not static/isometric. Like someone able to do a planche press HS would be able to hold a planche as well even if they never trained it isometrically since they pass through position concentrically. TUT doesn't matter because you would still build enough strength to hold it for an amount of time if you are muscling through it. Planche push-ups would work as well if done without momentum, but it's not as good as an example of a planche press since it is a bent to straight arm exercise instead of being purely a straight arm exercise like a planche press. The chances of injury with exercises like planche push-ups are a different topic. So it is false to say that you cannot achieve a static position with just training kinetic movements.

I'm having trouble picturing how someone would train for a planche to handstand without training plance and handstand isometrics.

I for one surely cannot improve my front pull without working my front lever.  A while ago I had neglected the ring support isometric and lack of elbow tendon strength bit me in the backside during muscle ups and back lever/back pull work.  So it may be theoretically possible but would it be healthy?  Or even practical?

kskh2o said:

I'm having trouble picturing how someone would train for a planche to handstand without training plance and handstand isometrics.

 

I for one surely cannot improve my front pull without working my front lever.  A while ago I had neglected the ring support isometric and lack of elbow tendon strength bit me in the backside during muscle ups and back lever/back pull work.  So it may be theoretically possible but would it be healthy?  Or even practical?

Well for the HS part they would have to train the HS to balance it and then lower down again, but the HS is different as it's a technical skill.

I'm willing to bet that you must have also neglected doing MUs with lockout too if all of a suddenly you lost sufficient elbow tendon strength to safely lockout in a MU because that shouldn't happen since if you regularly lockout in MUs then the elbow tendon strength should continually be strengthened or maintained unless it was from overuse which in that case can happen with ring support holds too. Nobody here has disagreed that doing both static and kinetic exercises is best.

Kinetic movements are proven to enable you to hold at any angle you pass through in a concentric contraction since I know that I can do an isometric hold at the middle of a bicep curl with only doing curls and I was always able to hold at any position of a push-up without doing any holds previously just because I'm strong enough to do full ROM push-ups.

B1214N said:

Kinetic movements are proven to enable you to hold at any angle you pass through in a concentric contraction since I know that I can do an isometric hold at the middle of a bicep curl with only doing curls and I was always able to hold at any position of a push-up without doing any holds previously just because I'm strong enough to do full ROM push-ups.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this.  Just because you can do something while moving, doesn't guarantee you can stop halfway through.  Isometrics at various ranges during a pistol are a great way to build up more leg strength, but just because you can do a couple pistols doesn't mean you can pause halfway down and then keep going.

Moving through a full ROM is usually going to require more strength than just holding a static position, but statics have an excellent way of recruiting more muscle fibers.

Another thing to consider is that tendons are mostly stressed at lockout.  Old time strongmen used to do a lot of lockout training with weights, just to strengthen the tendons.  You can test this yourself by grabbing something moderately heavy and trying to hold it straight out in front of you.

So while say, curls are a great way to strengthen the biceps tendon, it doesn't even come close to the stresses that they will feel in proper straight arm strength training.

It was based on my experience as well as others that being strong enough to do a kinetic exercise concentrically without the use of momentum does allow you to hold at any angle you pass through even without previously training the angle isometrically. I also hear it from other people. Maybe someone like Joshua can verify. 

Muscling through a full ROM is always going to require more strength than holding a static position within that ROM with both having the same TUT. A static position can require more strength than muscling through a full ROM if its TUT is a lot longer than the motion like holding a static position for 10 secs is going to take more strength than a moderate tempo movement. Statics build strength at one angle and transfer some to 15 degrees away so it should not recruit more fibers than a full range movement.

Tendon stress in bent to straight arm exercises are another topic. Kinetic exercises can include straight arm exercises like front pulls and back pulls and not just bent arm exercises. They can address this by having proper preparation and progressing steadily. My point is just that concentric movements will allow you hold a static position within its ROM. 

I don't deny that some straight arm exercises stress the biceps tendon more than bicep curls. I personally feel that curls stress the bicep muscle fibers much more while inner elbow straight arm exercises stress the biceps tendons much more.

Of course more muscle strength is going to be built in full ROM exercises where the stress is on the muscles.  A significant part of straight arm exercises is the fact that the stress is on the tendons, which I'm pretty sure is why we all do them in the first place.

To the OP: If you want to build pullup and dip strength, do pullups and dips.  Practicing dead hangs and support holds will help strengthen your tendons, and improve your ability to push into and pull out of lockout.

Remember, the hardest part of a dead hang pullup is the fact you need to switch from the load being supported by your tendons to being supported by your muscles.  And if you don't have a decent RTO support hold, your dips will always suffer at the lockout.

Your neglecting the fact that momentum will help you get through the hardest part of the ROM and also that statics eg front lever the position held is actually the part in the ROM that requires the most strength.

Elliot said:

Your neglecting the fact that momentum will help you get through the hardest part of the ROM and also that statics eg front lever the position held is actually the part in the ROM that requires the most strength.

If you read my posts carefully, you would know I said without momentum like using a slower tempo. The FL is held at the hardest angle, but a front pull goes pass that angle and much more, so if the static and movement are both done with a similar TUT then the movement is harder and requires more strength.