The Significance of the Ape Index

In sports genetics often play a very big role. After some curiousity about my body proportions, I discovered that my wingspan is some what greater than my height. This is apparantly called the Ape Index. Considering the complex nature of gymnastics, levers and what not - is the ape index of any real significance?

There seem to be a consesus for instance that a high ape index is a advantage in rock climbing. While weightlifters will generally benefit from a lower ape index.

Also are there other varying anatomic proportions apart from the ape index, that play a role in gymnastics?

shorter arms the better thats the general rule for gymnastics.. shorter arms=shorter lever=less torque on muscles

Razz said:

shorter arms (are) better, thats the general rule for gymnastics... shorter arms=shorter lever=less torque on muscles

Actually this is an oversimplification; shorter arms provide better leverage for ring strength elements and longer arms provide a longer lever with which to generate more swing on PH, PB and HB.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Yeah my bad I forgot to write this was only for rings, thanks coach

Fryk said:

Also are there other varying anatomic proportions apart from the ape index, that play a role in gymnastics?

"Typical of both men and women modern gymnasts is the 'ectomorph' and 'ecti-mesomorph' type of body composition and constitution, moderately wide shoulders, narrow hips, long arms, relatively long legs and a short trunk. Given the considerable differences in height and weight, the body proportions of top-class gymnasts are relatively constant. Thus, arm length is 42-47% in relation to body length, while legs are correspondingly 52-56%." --- Arkaev & Suchilin

No doubt there are outlier Olympic-level gymnasts, as well.

best,

jason

It is obvious that at a olympic level genetics (body proportions for instance) will play a huge role, but what about the lower levels. For instance in the levers a shorter arm translates into less resistance/torque (as Razz pointed out), but how much? Can it be quanitified?

It is obvious that at a olympic level genetics (body proportions for instance) will play a huge role, but what about the lower levels. For instance in the levers a shorter arm translates into less resistance/torque (as Razz pointed out), but how much? Can it be quanitified?

Yes, it can be quantified in inch pounds.

To compute how much power is need to hold an iron cross for example, simply use the same formula that old time strongmen used to compute the inch pounds that were being held by the wrists (weight of the sledge head in pounds x the length of the handle in inches). In this instance the weight of the body will replace the weight of the sledge, but will be divided by two as there are two arms, and the length of the arms will replace the length handle. The resulting poundages will shock you :shock:. And easily illustrate why ring strength is so much easier with shorter arms. As well as why regular exposure to ring strength builds such tremendous physiques and power.

For example, the calculations for a 200lb athlete with a 30" sleeve would be:

(30in x 200lbs/2) x 2 = 6,000 inch pounds.

The calculations for a 200lb athlete with a 32" sleeve would be:

(32in x 200lbs/2) x 2 = 6,400 inch pounds.

To the casual observer the athletes of the same weight would both be exerting the same effort during the iron cross; however in reality the longer limbed athlete is actually producing 400 more inch pounds of effort.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

That is quite a difference, and it supports my own private theory, though I am still not sure exactly what these numbers mean practically speaking. I was thinking that this might have a impact on which exercises one should focus on.

I investigated the Ape Index in first place is because I have been having very long drawn front lever problems. My "wingspan" is 188cm, but I am only 181cm tall. This is ratio of roughly 1.04. Could this be significant?

Fryk said:

I have been having very long drawn front lever problems. My "wingspan" is 188cm, but I am only 181cm tall. This is ratio of roughly 1.04. Could this be significant?

Not so much for front lever work, but it will have a significant impact on iron cross training.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

I'm 173 cm tall with a 185cm wingspan, my arms are almost straight in front of me during a front lever :shock: progress is slow...

Wow.. I'm pretty much 1:1 for height to wingspan i think, will have to measure again just for fun.

Me too, I'm pretty proportional in that respect.

I am 6 feet tall and have a little over a 6 foot 4 inch wingspan. The guys at the gym always laugh at me lol

Fryk said:

Also are there other varying anatomic proportions apart from the ape index, that play a role in gymnastics?

The upperbody/legs index? (if there is one) should be interesting! I can imagine long legs (compared to upperbody) has advantages for FX, volt and maybe highbar but not for XR, PB, PH and generally body levers?

I wonder what sort of build I have. It's terrible for everything except floor hahaha

167.64 cm wingspan (fingertips), 102.87 cm legs (from tip of hip bone to heel), and 39.37 cm trunk (from clavicle to hip). 167.37 cm in height.

That means my ape ratio is basically 1.

cdx said:

The upperbody/legs index? (if there is one) should be interesting! I can imagine long legs (compared to upperbody) has advantages for FX, volt and maybe highbar but not for XR, PB, PH and generally body levers?

Yes, I think you are right, the ape index in conjunction with leg/body-index is probably very important as far as determining difficulty. There is probably also a index here, I will have to measure legs tomorrow. Having long arms and legs is probably great in some sports, but as far as most gymnastic strength orientated movements go it is pretty useless. But still having a more "disadvantaged" lever just makes it more rewarding getting there.

It just means that you are that much stronger than someone with shorter arms or legs! So build that strength and be a BEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAST!

I like that statement, Slizzardman! One thing to remember also is that while some exercises might be harder due to indexes and ratios, there are also advantages, in other athletic endeavours other ratios are desirable instead. In the end it probably evens out.

That's the plan slizzardman! Heheh, that rhymed.

One guy in my breakdance club at school told me i'd never planche (because of my body proportions most likely), and he went to show his straddle planche which was more like a leaned handstand lol.

Show from several years ago. This girl is a rock climbing phenom. Watch the vid to see how she developed her ability. Basically she didn't know any better because she was so young (had to keep up with her playmate :shock: ).

~ 8:15 they mention her positive ape index

pc0c1ZlE048

Seiji said:

One guy in my breakdance club at school told me i'd never planche (because of my body proportions most likely), and he went to show his straddle planche which was more like a leaned handstand lol.

That's the plan! The less people who can perform a mover (eg. planche, side splits), the better it looks. It's good to have the support of this forum.

I've always been confused by longer limbs. I just assumed that is didn't make a difference to strength because despite the levers/bones being longer they would be just as easy to move under strain because tendons would be anchored further along them.

I drew a diagram (for wich I appologise ) to try and explain.

The blue is the rings, black represents the skeleton, red is for chest/lats muscles (including tendons). X is arm length and Y is reach of the muscles along the bone. I assumed that whatever length X is, it's more or less proportional to Y therefore making strength the same regardless of height.

I'm under no illusions that I've realised something that no-one else has, could someone please let me know where I've gone wrong. :?

You're missing a few vital pieces. PROPORTIONALLY, *ASSUMING* that everything was sized up proportionally, which is not how things happen in nature, the forces will still be greater. You'd have to have a proportional increase in biomass as well, from the tendons to the muscles to the attachment sites, for there to be a similar output. Larger people have larger forces acting on what starts out as more or less the same tendon size, so it takes longer because the tendons have to get stronger than on a smaller person or a person with shorter levers. Second, tendon attachments are completely individual. There is no set percentile that exists for the distance down a bone that attachments form. It's different on everyone. Third, individual bone size also differs. Some people have shorter forearms and longer upper arms, or visa versa, or similar lengths.

There are, obviously, statistically insignificant instances where you could find a person who is literally a scaled version of another person. In that case, they would be able to produce nearly identical force percentiles relative to the body size and motion arm length, but they would be identical only in percentiles. The actual numbers would be bigger. That's why you can't make a full scale car and run it on a go-kart motor. You have to make the motor bigger, because even though all the proportions may be the same, the ACTUAL FORCES required are greater.

Animalonfire said:

I've always been confused by longer limbs. I just assumed that is didn't make a difference to strength because despite the levers/bones being longer they would be just as easy to move under strain because tendons would be anchored further along them.

I drew a diagram (for wich I appologise ) to try and explain.

The blue is the rings, black represents the skeleton, red is for chest/lats muscles (including tendons). X is arm length and Y is reach of the muscles along the bone. I assumed that whatever length X is, it's more or less proportional to Y therefore making strength the same regardless of height.

That means the distance from the insertion of the lat to the ring is 19.14 inches.

So, if the proportion is the same in the 30 inch arm then the insertion will be 3.9 inches from the glenohumeral joint. That's a distance of 26.1 inches from lat insertion to the ring.

Or consider a very easy example. What if the lat always inserted at exactly the middle of the humerus? Just to keep the calculations simple, lets say the length of the humerus is half the distance to the rings from the glenohumeral joint. On the 22in arms the distance from the insertion to the rings will be 16.5 but the distance on the 30 inch arms will be 22.5.

Why? Because on the 22in arms the lat will insert 5.5 inches from the GH joint (11/2=5.5). The 30in arms it will attach at 7.5(15/2=7.5). 22-5.5=16.5 and 30-7.5=22.5.

Hope that clears it up.

slizzardman said:

You're missing a few vital pieces...

trianglechoke7 said:

Let's think about it....

Thanks both of you. Lots of things that I hadn't even considered.At the moment I have only a knowledge of secondary(/high) school physics (I'm taking as much as they'll let me ).