Weighted Vest

Hello,

Just wondering what people's opinion on weighted vest usage while Ring Training. Is this a good way to get stronger on ring elements? (i.e. Front lever/Back Lever/Handstand/Planche etc). Or should I stick to progressing through the normal progressions such as tuck/one leg/front lay variations that we are all used to. Hopefully I'm clear on my question. Just want your opinions before I go out and buy one. 

Thanks!
-Paul

It's my understanding that Yang Wei used to do ring work weighted. So when you are at a level when ring moves are too easy, look for a vest :-)

Might be a while?? If you have strong muscle ups and rope climb. You could look into adding weight there. But not for elemtents you don't have the full version of..

Experimenting with an already outstanding program probably won't improve your results.  However, I have both a home built dream machine and a weight vest and love using both.  Added weight can quickly make a normally easy exercise very difficult so you may have to significantly reduce difficulty levels to maintain form (and even then form will still likely suffer).

I would recommend adding weight to an exercise as one method of breaking a plateau or to achieve mastery of a skill you are already proficient at.  Ankle weights to improve your l-sit instead of moving up the standard GB progressions? Added weight is just another way to increase difficulty of an exercise instead of adjusting body levers.  

A weight belt is another fun option, weighted dips are a fun option at normal gyms where there is no gymnastics equipment.

What is a "Dream Machine?"

It is the precursor of Baron Vladimir Harkonnen anti-gravity devices

I'm slightly confused.  This is what I found when I searched Google images:

it is a sort of hook that theoratically reduces ur weight by 50% while using rings

Zach Armijo said:

There is no sense in adding weight to rope climbs, that's why Cirques and other variations are implemented. Work the harder variations, increase the levers and reinforce your form.

I can see how levers could be thrown off by the addition of weight on the chest. Although maybe things like Support holds or muscleups could benefit. I might come upon a free weighted vest so no harm in giving it a shot!

There's little point in adding weight to your ring training unless you're far beyond the level of anyone hanging around on this forum. If the elements you're training are too easy, you should be progressing to harder elements. If there are no harder elements for you to progress too, congratulations, you're probably competing in the Olympics. 

This is not to say that you can't get stronger by adding weight, just that there's no need to, and no benefit in comparison to moving to more difficult progressions. 

So, there is much less of a use for a weight VEST than a weighted BELT, because the vest will alter your center of gravity, pretty much wrecking your gymnastic work while wearing said vest.

The other issue with these things is a simple one: too much loading. These typically come with 4-5 lb adjustments, and that can be way too much of a jump for joint health, particularly when you're talking about your elbows. Beware of this, if you choose to use either one.

Finally, I agree with the assessments given regarding low leverage strength: It is silly to add weight to a tuck planche, for example, because it is not even close to the same position as a full planche, and the strength you build will not really carry over so smoothly. You are much better off continuing to follow the planche progressions unweighted, and toy with the idea of adding weight 1 ounce (literally) at a time when you are able to properly execute a full planche. Same goes for all other positions.

Achieve your final goal position first, and THEN perhaps consider adding small, small amounts of weight. Your idea for adding weight to intermediate progressions for static holds is not the smartest way to progress to the final position.

FYI, gymnasts tend to use weighted belts, not vests. Chen Yibing trained his entire ring routine with a 12 or 15kg belt (instead of a vest) for the reason I explained in the beginning of the post.

- Joshua Slocum is correct.  While an interesting training question, no one here is even remotely close to strong enough to begin considering adding either a weight vest or weighted belt to their ring strength training.

- If you are truly interested in ring strength training, your first order of business must be mastering rope climbs.  And yes, this means with no legs of course.  Only the preschoolers in our gym are allowed to climb with legs.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Awesome! Thank you ALL for the excellent advice. 

I am training in the way what Coach says for over a year, so I increase reps (or time) without increasing weights, the weight is the bodyweight. I have a "just do the program, because I couldn't know what I don't know" philosophy, but it still seems to me gymnasts don't utilize weights

either because of it is some religion thing for them,

or because it is much more convinient and cheaper,

or because they're too impatient to move on a more difficult progression,
and not because of the underlying physiology.

Comparing with people in weight room pursuing strength, they don't change their leverage (at least it is negligieble comparing to gymnasts leverage changes). Lets assume leverage changes and more difficoult movement patterns are the same things.

So gymnasts train one exercise at a time for over months. It is because the neurological adaptations. If they'd train more similar exercise they couldn't learn that effectively. (Actually people involved with street workout or martial arts tipically forget this.)

But what is the underlying physiology of increasing reps while stuck with the same weight?
Why people in weight room decreasing reps while increasing weights?
They could just increase reps like us and when they reach their desired reps they put on some more weights and start with low rep (like we change leverage).
Of course there are exercises where it is unsolvable for us, but let's just pass by them.
Wouldn't it be more effective to train their way? They've got a lot of unquestionable physiology under why they're decreasing reps and increasing weights. What we have got?
So I wouldn't go into their physiologycal reasons for decr reps and incr weights, instead of I would go into our physiologycal reasons why we utilize constant weight and incr reps, instead of their way.

Where does it say that gymnasts constantly increase reps without adding weight or decreasing leverage? It is universal that low reps and high resistance are the best way to build maximal strength. Decreasing the leverage is just like adding more weight (both give you more resistance). I also know of some gymnasts (usually higher leveled ones) who use weight vests, weighted belt, or ankle weights on advanced rings exercises and rings routines to increase the difficulty and build more strength.

I actually said that gymnasts do change their leverage, or  they move on more complex movement patterns, I don't know why you think that I said the opposite. I stated that they don't change those things in every weeks or every day, because of the neurological adaptations.
I don't understand why high skilled athletes should only use weights, but maybe you want to point out that they have reached a level where they could barely profit from not using weights.

Decrease leverage or move on more complex movement patterns are not like adding weights. These things are tools for achieve progressive overload, yes if you see it in that depth they are alike, but they have different attributes, for example, the adaptations. People increase weights weekly, monthly (or maybe daily), but they change leverage monthly or, 3 monthly.

Lets consider 3 parameter what could be changed for achieve progressive overload.

-leverage

-reps

-weights

Powerlifters have no reason of changing the leverage, they do the same thing over time with more and more weight.

They start out with higher reps going towards lower reps, meanwhile start out with higher weights, going toward with lower weights. When they reach their maximum potential, they put more weights and start again with the same high rep range.

Gymnasts have no intention of changing the weights.

They start out with lower reps going towards higher reps. When they reach their rep goal they decrease the leverage and start again the same cycle with more difficult leverage.

What I'm saying isnt wheights are an excellent oppurtunity for us to consider one more parameter for achieve progressive overload?

Joshua Naterman said:

strength you build will not really carry over so smoothly

I've just thinking about what Joshua Natherman said.

Considering the pushups and it's progression is pushup with legs on couch. You start out 5 pushups without weights and do it with increasing weights and decreasing reps to 1 and repeat this while you're able to do 5 legs-on-couch pushup. You're utilizing weights too, and the efficiency of increasing weights over increasing repetitions is undeniable.

It generates much more force this way, like if you would increase repetitions. But as Joshua said "this strength will not really carry over smoothly". You maybe never gonna reach this way the 5rep legs-on-couch pushup. Okay, probably you will reach quickly like repetitions, but with other exercises, like Joshua's planche example, your strength what you get with increasing weights will not carry over.

But doesn't it exciting? There has to be exercises where the powerlifter method could be much more benefical. It isnt really simple, but theoritically it has to work very well. But with each exercises, considering its next level progression we should set the right weights, but it is barely feasible. It requires fitness people to think like engineers and this kind of complexity maybe couldn't be presented for beginner in a good way. (Maybe not even intermediates or whatever you call.)

Ádám Ficsór said:

I've just thinking about what Joshua Natherman said.

Considering the pushups and it's progression is pushup with legs on couch. You start out 5 pushups without weights and do it with increasing weights and decreasing reps to 1 and repeat this while you're able to do 5 legs-on-couch pushup. You're utilizing weights too, and the efficiency of increasing weights over increasing repetitions is undeniable.

It generates much more force this way, like if you would increase repetitions. But as Joshua said "this strength will not really carry over smoothly". You maybe never gonna reach this way the 5rep legs-on-couch pushup. Okay, probably you will reach quickly like repetitions, but with other exercises, like Joshua's planche example, your strength what you get with increasing weights will not carry over.

But doesn't it exciting? There has to be exercises where the powerlifter method could be much more benefical. It isnt really simple, but theoritically it has to work very well. But with each exercises, considering its next level progression we should set the right weights, but it is barely feasible. It requires fitness people to think like engineers and this kind of complexity maybe couldn't be presented for beginner in a good way. (Maybe not even intermediates or whatever you call.)

I like the general idea, but in practise what's the point of replacing 'no weight + low leverage' with 'high weight + better leverage?' At best you might build the same pure strength, but not reinforce a good position. At worst, you get neither.

Maybe this has applications in the higher levels, but that's what Coach etc were saying anyway-- certainly well into advanced levels.

The point is that it could replace the increasing reps template with a much more effective template utilizing weights, but it seems to me most cases it costs too much.
The question is does it really worth it? If yes, when?

The issue of neurological adaptation is being mis-understood. Allow me to clarify: There is no issue with training similar patterns. The issue is only training one pattern.

For example: if someone trains bench press and planche, they are not going to end up with a partial planche form in their bench press, nor are they going to learn a planche with partial bench press form, unless they actively train that way. It is completely possible to train your body to perform each one correctly, without interfering with form on the other. The reason is simple: you are not thinking about planche when you bench... you are thinking about bench press. The same goes for planche. You actively run the "planche activation pattern" neural program, and there is no crossover to bench press.

The reason this gets confused is that when people have one background, be it either gymnastics OR lifting, their body has only learned certain patterns. A properly trained gymnast is going to have an advantage, because all they have to do is think "bridge + hollowback press + retract scaps" and they've got a perfect bench press.

On the other hand, the lifter has to learn how to hollow, how to protract, and has to allow time for the connective tissues and neural reflexes to adapt to the low leverage of the planche. In this case, the lifter has much more adaptation to do in the beginning. However, once you have learned both they are quite easy to train side by side.

If this was not the case, hollow back presses would wreck your planche, and planche would wreck your hollow back presses, because they are similar movements for quite a lot of the motion, yet use different body shapes and different activation patterns.

Just food for thought.

Having said all that, you guys are best off focusing on Foundation right now. There is certainly a time when it may be practical for you to cross-train with weights, but right now I do not believe that is the best use of your time to either try that OR to explore it. I would focus on mastering Coach's program as it is written, because that's where you need to spend the most time learning... well, how to move.