Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
mattdaly

bodybuilders v gymnasts

Recommended Posts

mattdaly

Well if u don't want to sound like an asshole, don't!:) my point is that they are different but the prblem is many people want to place the two in the same context due to the muscle building effects on the body. Sure I realise bb can get u strong I worked out in bb style for bout 20 hrs I'm 36 now at 73kg I could deadlift 183kg and bench137kg now I'm down to 62kg and still do those lifts with gymnast worfouts for last 3half months. In fact I know I'm stronger all round. When I say seen the light it was for those who view gymnastics as u say "gay" in response to muscle building through gymnastics as most of my gym buddies do. Hey I'm all for free weights and so forth but for all round functional strength gymnastics cannot be beat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mattdaly

When I mean gay it was in relation to ur mates view of rugby and soccer and my mates who do bb and view me doing gymnastics .ps I play soccer but love rugby too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Naterman
If you consider machine work strong then sure. We have two different ideas of what actual strength is then.

Strength = the muscle's ability to produce force. Period.

What you are talking about is proficiency with a movement, and is not the same thing. One is the physical and chemical ability of a muscle to produce force (strength) and the other is the body's ability to use the strength it has in a specific movement.

You just don't consider the movements on a machine to be worth much, and I am not suggesting that you change that opinion.

What I am trying to get across is that you are making a misjudgement in your logic. The people who use machines all the time, assuming they are working all muscle groups evenly, have the raw physical strength to quickly become monster squatters and deadlifters (as an example) if they were to practice the movements. Because their nervous systems don't have any idea how do perform this movement they won't have particularly good squats for their size at first. That will change very quickly, because the CNS adapts several orders of magnitude faster than new sarcomeres are formed.

Something very similar would happen with upper body gymnastic strength, assuming nothing had gone untrained.

As far as training efficiency goes, nothing's more efficient for upper body strength/athletic performance than Gymnastic Strength Training™ (if performed correctly) supplemented with specific weight lifting, and nothing's more effective for the lower body than proper weight lifting supplemented with correct bodyweight strength work.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FREDERIC DUPONT
(...) outrageous amounts of designer drugs, (...)

"Outrageous" opens a whole can of worms because it implies that the use of forbidden PEDs is acceptable if the amounts are "less outrageous"...

Either you are pregnant, or you are not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Naterman
(...) outrageous amounts of designer drugs, (...)

"Outrageous" opens a whole can of worms because it implies that the use of forbidden PEDs is acceptable if the amounts are "less outrageous"...

Either you are pregnant, or you are not!

This is true lol!

You have to admit though, when your yearly PED bill is $75,000 you are being a bit outrageous... even for outrageous people :P

It is certainly 100% fair to say that what these guys are doing is insanely, outrageously dangerous. Following a PED protocol that a doctor would have given you back in 1990 would, without question, not be anywhere near as dangerous.

Now that steroids are illegal it's a bad idea to take them at all, because no one can give you proper medical guidance and that opens up a lot of bad roads to travel down.

I will also argue, quite ridiculously, that Octo-mom was a lot more pregnant than most moms. :lol:

8 babies > 1 baby.

Specially designed designer drugs that no one has any idea what the short or long term adverse effects are + classical steroid abuse at very high dosages is way more ridiculous than the way steroids were used during Arnold's heyday. Was the old way safe? Unknown, but it seems that Frank Zane, Arnold, and many others from that era are faring a good bit better than the people who are taking 5-10x the amount of steroids in a cycle.

I don't think any steroids are a good idea, but I also don't have a problem pointing out someone like Ronnie who is way, way, way over the top. There IS a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FREDERIC DUPONT
(...) it seems that Frank Zane, Arnold, and many others from that era are faring a good bit better than the people who are taking 5-10x the amount of steroids in a cycle. (...)

I agree that if 100 is dangerous, it is not farfetched to think that 1,000 is more dangerous; however, it is a mistake to draw conclusions on a few examples:

Dead men tell no tales!

What happened to the legions from this era that ran into dire health problems? They are off the radar screen and this creates a worrying bias.

I also find the idolization (and further monetary or public success?/reward) of cheaters troubling!

As I said, a whole can O' worms, and a major thread hijack!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rik de Kort
If you consider machine work strong then sure. We have two different ideas of what actual strength is then.

Strength = the muscle's ability to produce force. Period.

What you are talking about is proficiency with a movement, and is not the same thing. One is the physical and chemical ability of a muscle to produce force (strength) and the other is the body's ability to use the strength it has in a specific movement.

What I am trying to get across is that you are making a misjudgement in your logic.

Forgive me if I interpreted that wrong, but his logic is fine; only his assumptions differ from yours and that's why you end up with two different outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip Chubb

Simply wrong terminology then. I am talking about when you are at the point where you can transfer the abilities you have to other things without having practiced them. I almost want to say transferability but I'm not sure if I just made that up. If we're going with producing force, then sure. That goes with the definition and fits and you're correct. I was getting the idea that you were saying "max out on the leg press and your squats will be huge and you'll be a beast". Which is enough to get most people laughed at and stomped when they go into their particular sport. I was the prime example of this years ago.

Ha. The bodybuilder comments comes from talking to older ones who talk about how it used to be about being strong and big. Now it's who can be the biggest person without normally being "strong" in the sense that it's useful. Some are but in terms of the weights some of them can move, a lot of them aren't as "strong" as they look. Ronnie Coleman comes to mind because he is different and deadlifts around 800 I believe. Although steriords make this more possible I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Naterman
If you consider machine work strong then sure. We have two different ideas of what actual strength is then.

Strength = the muscle's ability to produce force. Period.

What you are talking about is proficiency with a movement, and is not the same thing. One is the physical and chemical ability of a muscle to produce force (strength) and the other is the body's ability to use the strength it has in a specific movement.

What I am trying to get across is that you are making a misjudgement in your logic.

Forgive me if I interpreted that wrong, but his logic is fine; only his assumptions differ from yours and that's why you end up with two different outcomes.

Logic, and communication in general, is based on definitions being the same among individuals. That's what I'm trying to point out. Yes, it is semantic. Yes, semantics matter.

It's boring and most people don't care, so I'm going to hop off this thread and let it do its thing.

Alex: It is so true... bodybuilding used to be about beauty and art, and now it is just about slapping more meat on the ol' bones!

If those IFBB Pro guys every put their mind to being serious powerlifters they would quickly become state or regional forces to be reckoned with, they already have the serious physical structure to do well. Now mobility... :lol: That would probably need work :P The steroids... so true again! You can't even get your pro card without those anymore. Not sure you ever could, I believe even Frank Zane used steroids. They make an enormous difference, and are so prevalent that people have absolutely no idea what a natural body looks like anymore! You pretty much have to look to pre-1934 to see a truly drug free body.

I was one of those leg press monsters too lol! 800-something lbs for sets of 20 reps, knees to shoulders at 18 years old, could barely squat 135 properly. I could, however, literally send someone flying across the room with a solid front teep so I won't say it didn't transfer over to the ring. Took forever for me to learn to squat even half-decently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip Chubb

Well now that I know what strength is defined as I completely agree. You can get stronger doing anything. Whether it transfers over or not is a different story. But there is probably another word for that. I'll work on my vocabulary so I can be understood.

That is what I meant when I said Ronnie Coleman isn't the norm. Perhaps he is a bad example of my point but it seems like now it isn't such an artist sport. Instead, it's a steriod advertistment mixed with a beauty pagent. Bad mix.

My footjabs were fairly mean from the leg pressing too! Especially when I got bored and started doing one leg. My grappling suffered for it. To the point where my coach told my mom "he's huge but so weak. Does he actually like wrestling?" Never looked back since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rik de Kort

Logic, and communication in general, is based on definitions being the same among individuals. That's what I'm trying to point out. Yes, it is semantic. Yes, semantics matter.

It's boring and most people don't care, so I'm going to hop off this thread and let it do its thing.

Then we are on exactly the same page. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Naterman
Well now that I know what strength is defined as I completely agree. You can get stronger doing anything. Whether it transfers over or not is a different story. But there is probably another word for that. I'll work on my vocabulary so I can be understood.

That is what I meant when I said Ronnie Coleman isn't the norm. Perhaps he is a bad example of my point but it seems like now it isn't such an artist sport. Instead, it's a steriod advertistment mixed with a beauty pagent. Bad mix.

My footjabs were fairly mean from the leg pressing too! Especially when I got bored and started doing one leg. My grappling suffered for it. To the point where my coach told my mom "he's huge but so weak. Does he actually like wrestling?" Never looked back since.

Don't worry, sorry to sound like an ass!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip Chubb

I come from a family of diabetics. We need NOTHING to be sugar coated! :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregor

As to aesthetics....if you prefer the look of a gymnast (I know I do) cool, that's your prerogative. But please realise your not going to get the physique of Yuri Van Gelder doing gymnastic training and your NOT going to become as big as Ronnie Coleman doing bodybuilding style training.....your not that special, sorry!

Ed

Hahaha I really liked that comment :mrgreen:

Lets put doping aside and who use it and who does not.

You probably know that it exsist 2 diffrent types of muscle hypertrophy:

1. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (tipical representive is Body builder) with below 80% of max load each rep with 6/8-12/15 reps

2. Miofibrilated hypertrophy (tipical reprezentive is Olimpic weight lifter) with above 80% usualy 90% of max load 1-6 reps

Both of them are the best representives of a strength at that repetition count. So basicly BB eats OL lifter at 6-12 reps, and OL lifter eats BB at 1-6 max reps. Conclusion: both of them are strong as an ox!

Well gymnastic is somewhere in the mix of those two, and it depends on wich apparatus you train or if on all...For rings more on miofibrilated side.

Gymnastics is all about relative strength, lighter you are, the stronger relative strength you poses.

Example: Balandin/Gelder (Balandin is stronger in relative strength due to his low weight but Gelder poses higher absolute strength). Same goes for olipic lifters where in lighter categories lifters are pulling bigger ratios compared to BW.

So please stop BB are not strong.

PS: body weight training is very technical. So nobody can expect that will gymnast lift big numbers in dead lift with out training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quick Start Test Smith

It may be true that you won't look like Yuri van Gelder just by doing GST and that you won't look like Ronnie Coleman by doing BB, but to be honest, I think that almost all people mislead themselves about what they'd be super happy with. They think, "I want to look like Yuri/Coleman" and then when they're about halfway there, they find themselves more than happy already. My point is, I think we tend to overestimate what we'd be very, very happy with. You don't need to look like Yuri or Coleman to look fantastic and and better than 85% of the population (not that anyone should care about how they look compared to people they don't even know).

Maybe it's not possible, but who cares? What we know IS possible is going to make you happier than you thought you'd be anyway :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craig Mallett
You cannot get big curling 10lb dumbbells. It doesn't work that way.

Not really on topic, but I disagree with this, there is plenty of evidence suggesting the old time strongmen trained only using 5-7lb dumbbells. Check out this short article:

http://fighters-journey.blogspot.com.au ... -with.html

The guy who wrote that article has a book which I have a copy of. I have tried the routine and it is by no means easy, even with a 2.5kg weight. The book has clear evidence that the "original" body builder Eugen Sandow practiced almost exclusively in this way (scans of Eugen's books are available here: http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/sandowindex.htm).

And Eugene Sandow wasn't exactly small:

http://www.google.com.au/search?sugexp= ... a=N&tab=wi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RatioFitness
You cannot get big curling 10lb dumbbells. It doesn't work that way.

Not really on topic, but I disagree with this, there is plenty of evidence suggesting the old time strongmen trained only using 5-7lb dumbbells. Check out this short article:

http://fighters-journey.blogspot.com.au ... -with.html

The guy who wrote that article has a book which I have a copy of. I have tried the routine and it is by no means easy, even with a 2.5kg weight. The book has clear evidence that the "original" body builder Eugen Sandow practiced almost exclusively in this way (scans of Eugen's books are available here: http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/sandowindex.htm).

And Eugene Sandow wasn't exactly small:

http://www.google.com.au/search?sugexp= ... a=N&tab=wi

The idea in the blog post that heavy weight training causes you to be slow by training you to contract antagonist muscles is simply false.

Also, how could lifting 5 pound weights possibly cause hypertrophy? Explain the mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Naterman
You cannot get big curling 10lb dumbbells. It doesn't work that way.

Not really on topic, but I disagree with this, there is plenty of evidence suggesting the old time strongmen trained only using 5-7lb dumbbells. Check out this short article:

http://fighters-journey.blogspot.com.au ... -with.html

The guy who wrote that article has a book which I have a copy of. I have tried the routine and it is by no means easy, even with a 2.5kg weight. The book has clear evidence that the "original" body builder Eugen Sandow practiced almost exclusively in this way (scans of Eugen's books are available here: http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/sandowindex.htm).

And Eugene Sandow wasn't exactly small:

http://www.google.com.au/search?sugexp= ... a=N&tab=wi

The idea in the blog post that heavy weight training causes you to be slow by training you to contract antagonist muscles is simply false.

Also, how could lifting 5 pound weights possibly cause hypertrophy? Explain the mechanism.

This is actually an interesting topic that delved into a lot of interesting physiology.

I just wrote a pretty out-of-the-box reply that I mostly deleted, simply because A) it goes against some commonly accepted ideas while not conflicting with the underlying physiological mechanisms, B) is probably pretty commercially viable and I am tired of these lurkers stealing my ideas and selling them... I'd rather take the time and develop them as GB stuff if possible.

And C) there is always the possibility that people will go do something stupid with what I post, because I just can't write a whole book here.

(hopes no one brings up my penchant for writing what could be called short books on a regular basis)

Seriously though, in a few words:

1) Orderly rate of recruitment due to fatigue

2) Response to ischemia

3) :) Can't tell you this one, but it's common sense if you have detailed knowledge of sarcomere anatomy and a few other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Larry Roseman

I suspect the mentality of the people drawn to bodybuilding and those drawn to gymnastics are completely different.

I'm not saying that we are the chimps and bodybuilders are the gorillas ... oops I said it.

Anyway the key thing is what girls think, and frankly they would think either group is strong.

Chances are she would be impressed by a guy pressing a 100 pound dumbell overhead or a single arm handstand equally.

Unfortunately lots of girls like the tattoed bad boy type, and a bodybuilder is more often that type

than a gymnast. On the other hand gymnasts can carry a multi-syllabic conversation :mrgreen:

Well as you suspect the post is somewhat in jest.

If there is a grain of truth to it, it is only in the eye of the beholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vagabond

For the 5 pounds dumbbell thing, they might not have used the dumbbells for putting a heavy mechanical tension on their muscles, but to help them focusing on their muscles to do voluntary contractions. These contractions don't have to be static either, and of course they use antagonistic muscles as resistance, but it can work. I tried it during my gymnastics vacations (1 month) a few years ago and I felt stronger when I got back. Might have been the rest I had, but still, there was a very clear difference. Now, I didn't read Sandow's books (I hate reading the images from Sandowplus.co.uk, even if the books might be valuable), so it might not be how he used his 5 pounds dumbbells at all. But it's possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Naterman
For the 5 pounds dumbbell thing, they might not have used the dumbbells for putting a heavy mechanical tension on their muscles, but to help them focusing on their muscles to do voluntary contractions. These contractions don't have to be static either, and of course they use antagonistic muscles as resistance, but it can work. I tried it during my gymnastics vacations (1 month) a few years ago and I felt stronger when I got back. Might have been the rest I had, but still, there was a very clear difference. Now, I didn't read Sandow's books (I hate reading the images from Sandowplus.co.uk, even if the books might be valuable), so it might not be how he used his 5 pounds dumbbells at all. But it's possible.

Light tension allows you to learn to turn off antagonistic muscle groups, and this does end up carrying over to heavy efforts.

It should be said that there is no one way to all-around performance, but rather a preferred set of tools for each aspect of all-around performance. Used together they create a much more capable athlete than when one or more is missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craig Mallett

The idea in the blog post that heavy weight training causes you to be slow by training you to contract antagonist muscles is simply false.

Also, how could lifting 5 pound weights possibly cause hypertrophy? Explain the mechanism.

Joshua answered this briefly already, and Vagabond was on the right path, however there is specific effort put into relaxing antagonistic muscles rather than using them as resistance. Ideally with correct training you should be able to get to the point where you are no longer "muscle bound" and are able to flex all muscles totally individually while the rest of the body remains relaxed.

If you don't want to sift through all the junk on sandowplus.co.uk, you can check out this book written by David Bolton who is also the author of the article posted early. It's very clearly explained in the book how the system worked, along with all the necessary exercises to be able to practice yourself. David has himself seen great results from this (I think that's him on the cover), so it's certainly a valid technique. It's not a big read (121 pages i think?) and you can it get here.

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Secret-Great ... great+body

I'd be keen to see if it combines well with gymnastics work and/or body building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RatioFitness

This is actually an interesting topic that delved into a lot of interesting physiology.

I just wrote a pretty out-of-the-box reply that I mostly deleted, simply because A) it goes against some commonly accepted ideas while not conflicting with the underlying physiological mechanisms, B) is probably pretty commercially viable and I am tired of these lurkers stealing my ideas and selling them... I'd rather take the time and develop them as GB stuff if possible.

And C) there is always the possibility that people will go do something stupid with what I post, because I just can't write a whole book here.

(hopes no one brings up my penchant for writing what could be called short books on a regular basis)

Seriously though, in a few words:

1) Orderly rate of recruitment due to fatigue

2) Response to ischemia

3) :) Can't tell you this one, but it's common sense if you have detailed knowledge of sarcomere anatomy and a few other things.

(1) and (2) are not sufficient to cause hypertrophy, otherwise running marathons to exhaustion would cause hypertrophy.

I'm sure you're familiar with the recent study that used 30% of 1RM to failure and found that it caused hypertrophy. But the problem was that there was no increase in strength. If a person can curl a 70 pound dumbbell for 1 rep, then 5lbs. would only be 7% of max.

Also, don't you think you are being a bit silly saying that whatever (3) is is "common sense?" If it were common sense then you wouldn't have to keep it a secret because it would be common knowledge already among scientists and trainers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rik de Kort
Also, don't you think you are being a bit silly saying that whatever (3) is is "common sense?" If it were common sense then you wouldn't have to keep it a secret because it would be common knowledge already among scientists and trainers.

Just because it's there doesn't mean it's going to be noticed.

I'm really into Assassin's Creed gameplay (in-depth stuff, glitching, stunts, that type of stuff) and there is still SO MUCH to be found within the first game, which came out years ago. It's amazing what you can find. And people have spent a lot of time on it. It's just that before some things to be common sense, you have to have the right tools. Like last year, a guy named Aurel discovered a way to break scene barriers and to get your character in the scene, which shouldn't be possible. It then was common sense for me to break OUT of the scene, rather than in, but hadn't Aurel's exploit been there, I would've never thought of it. It lead to a

too, unofficial world record. But I'm going on a tangent here.

Common sense/logical =/= known

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RatioFitness
Also, don't you think you are being a bit silly saying that whatever (3) is is "common sense?" If it were common sense then you wouldn't have to keep it a secret because it would be common knowledge already among scientists and trainers.

Just because it's there doesn't mean it's going to be noticed.

I'm really into Assassin's Creed gameplay (in-depth stuff, glitching, stunts, that type of stuff) and there is still SO MUCH to be found within the first game, which came out years ago. It's amazing what you can find. And people have spent a lot of time on it. It's just that before some things to be common sense, you have to have the right tools. Like last year, a guy named Aurel discovered a way to break scene barriers and to get your character in the scene, which shouldn't be possible. It then was common sense for me to break OUT of the scene, rather than in, but hadn't Aurel's exploit been there, I would've never thought of it. It lead to a

too, unofficial world record. But I'm going on a tangent here.

Common sense/logical =/= known

Common sense is not the same thing as whatever is logical. I'll accept that it might be something which follows simply and obviously and hence almost everyone with knowledge of the set of facts will deduce once they become aware of the particular set of facts/circumstances, even if those original facts were hard to come by. That's seems what you are saying with your Assassins Creed example.

Since most people with detailed knowledge of sarcomere anatomy probably haven't deduced the mysterious (3), it certainly doesn't meet the criteria for common sense. It requires an UNCOMMON sense to realize the truth.

It's kind of like a super math genius who figures out some complicated proof with ease that hardly anyone else can. Because he can figure it out with ease he thinks it's merely common sense, because he is so far out of touch with the normal range of math ability he has a skewed perspective.

Basically, Josh is implying that he is a super anatomy genius that has uncommon insights into the muscle physiology. Since he's a super genius he's totally out of touch with what even other experts are capable of figuring out, he thinks it's all just a bunch of "common sense."

Let me say that I'm not trying to start a flame war over this, so it's probably best just to drop this particular discussion point. I won't comment on it any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Please review our Privacy Policy at Privacy Policy before using the forums.