Wanted to get some opinions on this discussion going on over at the Catalyst Athletics forum regarding "myth of nonfunctional muscle mass" particularly the assertion that gymnastics is too time consuming and not as useful as barbell work.
"I disagree with Ido and Chris about gymnastics based training being superior for everything under the sun. In fact, besides some anecdotal stuff, there is nothing that proves it.
First off, while that stuff is, undeniably, cool as hell, it's also extremely time consuming to develop the skills to take maximal advantage of that type of training. Also, gymnastics based training was popular a long time ago until team sports became popular, then training for the sport-specific skills for those sports became more important than mastering the gymnastics skills.
In addition, the number of adult gymnastics practitioners who have become successful at training in that style is very low.
Gymnastics based training might be the shit, but if you take two twins, one doing gymnastics based training and one doing barbell training, then put them out on the football field or the rugby pitch, and ask one of them to run through the other, whom do you think is going to win?
Plus, for the simple task of looking better naked, what do you think, as a member of the modern society of North America (mostly) would be the best way to get there.
1. 10-12 hours weekly of gymnastic training.
2. 2-3 hours of barbell training and 1-2 hours of cardio/metcon?
How about MMA fighting? If you are training 10-12 hours for muscular conditioning via gymnastics movements, then when are you training your sporting skills?
Ido Portal has the leisurely means to travel to Europe and spend months learning from secret circus and acrobatic training masters. Do you? Chris Sommer is a professional gymnastics coach and he and his athletes have access to an awesomely equipped gymnastics facility. Do you?
There's a reason barbell based strength training is use for almost every single sport in the world. That reason is that for the time invested, it works much, much better than anything else."
"I don't think Shaf was falling into an all or nothing, I think he was making a case for the bells. It's kind of an efficiency thing. Assuming competent training in either domain, you're going to get better adaptations for less effort of learnign the movement from the bells. A power clean can be taught in minutes. Same with the press.
If you're an athlete in most sports you can win some efficiency by keeping your power/strength training less skill intensive. I buy it.
Might we also suggest scaling issues? How would you get a 300lb lineman upper body power from gymnastics as easily as from bells? It's out of my realm, so i'd be happy to hear methods."
__________________
I agree with Shaf.
1. High level gymnastics moves require high technical proficiency, which is a waste of time for someone training for a sport.
2. Static holds have little strength transference beyond 15 degrees around the hold.
3. Strength training is secondary to sport training.
4. Equipment and spotting is not practical for everyone.
5. Progression with gymnastics exercises is very slow.
Bodyweight exercises can be incorporated into strength training for sports, like Weighted Dips, Weighted Chinups, and various high rep stuff, but that's not really gymnastics.
Any thoughts on these comments?