Pulling Is "easier" Than Pushing?

Joshua Naterman said:

 

B1214:

 

To me, in a maltese you're trying to keep the COG from moving forward in the saggital plane, whereas in a victorian you're trying to keep it from moving backwards. To me, this former is pressing and the latter is pulling. That's how I categorize these two movements, because if we are talking about what muscles do then everything is a pull. Muscles can't push. It would be like trying to push something with a rope... the rope just gets all floppy on you, but when you pull things move.

The definition I got for pull is to move (hands) toward your COG and press is to move away from your COG. So by that definition they would both be a pull. I guess this is just a different interpretation of pull/press and both can be correct or one is wrong? So by your definition, the back lever would be considered a press? You know a lot more than me so I might be wrong here.

No I think BL is has more pull elements

The problem you guys are having here is that pushing and pulling are not scientific anatomical terms, as such they are not set in stone as a real antomical definition is, say shoulder flexion. There is are a lot of grey areas with terms that come just from the general population. You don't every see a bench press or a pullup as just described as a pressing or pulling exercise in exercise science literature for the very reason that the terms are not very clear. Instead it's shoulder flexion with horizontal adduction and elbow extension.

Especially with exercises where the arms are behind the body the terms pressing and pulling get pretty fuzzy. Manna and back lever are good examples as the exercises can be a press or a pull based on the definition of pressing and pulling you choose to use. But in the exercise science world a front lever, a victorian and manna are all shoulder extension exercises no matter how you look at it.

The terms pulls and presses also create balancing issue. For example balancing a bench press with rows is not as balancing as one might think. Sure the shoulder artriculation gets balanced in terms of flexion and extension but what about the scapula? Both are retractions. As I understand something similar can be said to trying to balance maltese work with victorian work but I would feel more comfortable with someone else tackling that issue like Joshua.

Joshua gave his two cents a few posts ago and stated that in a Maltese, one is attempting to keep their COG from moving forward in the saggital plane, and VC you are attempting to keep it from from moving behind the saggital plane. I look at pull and press like this, pull is moving your hands towards your CoG(or your CoG towards your hands), and press is moving your hands away from you CoG(vice versa). Is this correct? And if so, VC and BL would be considered mainly pull(with some press depending on how you look at it) right?

I guess my initial contribution to this topic was meant to state that the advanced rings moves are not as black and white as people tend to believe, neither is the idea of pull/press, but I'm liking the discussion we've gotten into, as I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to try and understand these moves better!

mirroredrain said:

Joshua gave his two cents a few posts ago and stated that in a Maltese, one is attempting to keep their COG from moving forward in the saggital plane, and VC you are attempting to keep it from from moving behind the saggital plane. I look at pull and press like this, pull is moving your hands towards your CoG(or your CoG towards your hands), and press is moving your hands away from you CoG(vice versa). Is this correct? And if so, VC and BL would be considered mainly pull(with some press depending on how you look at it) right?

 

Wait so which definition/interpretation of pull/press are you sticking to? BL and maltese would be considered a press in Joshua's definition whereas they are considered a pull in the definition I used. In short, shoulder flexion = press and shoulder extension = pull in Josh's definition whereas it depends on the direction and location of the hands relative to the COG in my definition. I agree with AlexX that push and pull are not real anatomical terms so there is no set definition, so it depends on how you see/interpret it.

Now I am just confused!! I don't know where if Joshua actually said that but I do agree with AlexX. In a BL, your shoulders technically are behind you in extension right? Extension at the joint. But doesn't it matter that gravity is pulling so you are essentially 'pulling' your body away from gravity to keep it in the BL position? You can be in extension, but depending on the nature of the exercise, you can be statically pulling out of or pressing into shoulder extension. Right?

Inverted planche for example is extension with your pectoral girdle actively pressing your body away from gravitational pull, and pushing your arms behind you. In BL your shoulders are in extension but youre statically pulling them towards you, which would end up oriented in shoulder flexion eventually. We're just over thinking it at this point

Joshua never specifically said BL was a press, but it is according to the definition he used for press. He considers press to be keeping the COG from moving forward in the sagittal plane which is what you are trying to do in the BL. 

From what you said, you interpret pull and press the same way I do which is to bring the hands toward your COG for pull and to bring your hands away from your COG for press. Oh and the shoulders extended behind the body is called hyperextension which is where the shoulders are in BL and manna/inverted planche.

Having read this thread, I feel a growing urge to get my definition in of what constitutes pulling and pushing in GB moves, before it is too late and I will have to live with a definition that I don’t understand and therefore don’t like. Of course, the essence has already been stated, but then gets confused again by remarks like “... 

mirroredrain said:

Joshua gave his two cents a few posts ago and stated that in a Maltese, one is attempting to keep their COG from moving forward in the saggital plane, and VC you are attempting to keep it from from moving behind the saggital plane. I look at pull and press like this, pull is moving your hands towards your CoG(or your CoG towards your hands), and press is moving your hands away from you CoG(vice versa). Is this correct? And if so, VC and BL would be considered mainly pull(with some press depending on how you look at it) right?
 

Both a pulling and pushing GB exercise require strength to overcome (or counter, when just holding a position) the force of good old gravity (your tireless adversary) that relentlessly pulls you towards the center of mother earth. Whether we call it a pushing or pulling exercise is determined by the direction your body’s center of gravity (COG) has to be moved away from the point that attaches you to mother earth (your fixed point or FP; usually where your hands are, but the FP can also be, for example, at your feet; just watch yourself in the mirror when you walk). If your body’s COG is between you and your FP then according to this physics-based terminology you have to push against the force of gravity. If your body’s COG is below your FP then you have to pull against the force of gravity. The muscular strength that you need for the movement (or hold) itself always comes from muscular contraction. This muscular contraction is sometimes also called a “pulling†action, hence a lot of the confusion in the discussions in this thread. For example in moves like the manna, contraction (“pullingâ€) is also needed to hold the (lower) body into a position against the stretch of certain ligaments and muscles; be that as it may, because the COG is above the FP (i.e. hands on floor or pb) the move itself is a push if we use the physics-based definition. I think quite a few posts in this thread overly complicate things further by  trying to “enhance†the relatively straightforward physics-based definition of push versus pull with terminology such as shoulder flexion versus extension, and adduction versus abduction. The result  is a really tasty soup with an aroma that can be discussed endlessly because we have moved ourselves into the spheres of BS (blowing smoke). Nothing wrong about that, of course, but I suggest that we then rename this thread to “How much BS can we generate when we talk about simple terms like pull versus pushâ€. 

I like you man. You have the best posts.

Frits has an excellent point.  However I will throw my own hat into the ring and do my best to thoroughly confuse the issue even further, before finally putting it to rest.  

It is quite difficult to pigeon hole advanced ring strength elements into conventional exercise nomenclature; not only in terms of direction of movement but also in terms of the musculature involved.

- As a point of reference consider that your center of gravity (COG) is approximately 2" below your navel.

- In terms of rings strength, a press could then be defined as physical force exerted on the rings in a direction away from the COG.

- In terms of ring strength, a pull could then be defined as physical force exerted on the rings in a direction toward the COG.

- The iron cross would then primarily be a "pull" as force is exerted against the rings in a direction toward the COG in an attempt to prevent the body from falling below the rings; even though the shoulders and chest are also working quite hard.

- While the planche would primarily be a "press" as force is exerted against the rings in a direction away from the COG; although the biceps and lats are also working hard.

- However more advanced ring strength elements can be both a push or a pull depending on whether the initial starting position of your COG is above or below the rings.

- For example if my maltese COG is slightly below the rings, I will need to "pull" on the rings to move my COG up to the rings.

- However if my maltese COG is slightly above the rings, I will be "pushing" on the rings to prevent my COG from dropping below the rings.

- And then to further completely confuse you; consider that if my maltese COG is exactly level with the rings am I performing a "pull" or a "press"?  A convincing case can be made for either one or actually both at the same time as my maltese position may oscillate slightly.

This is why in the world of gymnastics, we simply divide ring strength elements into bent arm and straight arm categories and avoid the issue of attempting to apply inappropriate traditional labels altogether.  

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Actually, Coach, I find it very illuminating what you are saying. No confusion at all, here. So, thank you for taking the time. Eh.. about your hat. Can I borrow it for awhile? I will take good care of it. And, Mirrorredrain, you are a good sport (as the British say) for still liking me. 

Things are a lot clearer now, for me at least. I appreciate it Coach and Frits! I also realize how adding in the terms pull or press can definitely be unnecessary, BA or SA will suffice for me from now on at least when it comes to statics. Something such as the butterfly is called a 'pull' to cross, but is defined in the FIG as a 'vertical pull up with straight arms', so I think that's a lot more concrete than a static Maltese with CoG exactly between the rings. Good points.

This is an excellent topic indeed!

What I got from Coach's post is basically that delineations like "pushing" and "pulling" are for people who aren't cool/strong/skilled enough to use gymnastic rings where, to some degree or another, you do all of them in concert.  

You pull a deadlift, push a bench press, and defy gravity on rings.  

That's awesome Coach......

Now how about that new workout of the day........ha ha

Thanks for doing this.

I have been following your site and doing the workouts for the last9 weeks

and have seen major improvement

fantastic reply Coach!

That's a great post Coach! It is exactly like what I said in a previous post and is how I define pull/press.

B1214N said:

You are correct! The victorian and also the maltese are not strictly push or pull, but rather both, neither, or in between. Both shoulder flexion and shoulder extension can either be considered pushing or pulling depending on what range the shoulders/arms are positioned in, for instance, shoulder flexion can be considered a pull if the shoulders are in hyperextension (behind the back) since you are trying to bring the arms forward towards your body like in back lever and it is a push if the shoulders are in the flexion range (in front of body) where you are trying to bring your arms forward away from your body like in planche. The maltese is where the shoulders are positioned neutral in between flexion and hyperextension thus it cannot be strictly considered only as a push or pull. Similarly, front lever would be a pulling exercise, victorian is somewhere in between, and manna/inverted planche a pushing exercise. It is mentioned in "Overcoming Gravity" that the maltese and victorian are full tension exercises requiring muscles from both the front and back to work very hard together.

 

Adduction is aways a pull though.

I later declared that maltese was a pull because in a perfect maltese where the hands are in line with the COG in the same plane, you would have to statically pull to prevent the COG from falling below the hands/rings assuming your hands don't bypass below the COG where you begin pressing. Now that you said people may oscillate slightly trying to keep the rings leveled with the body in a maltese like what would happen in real life, then it is certainly both pulling and pressing.

Steve Sisk said:

 

What I got from Coach's post is basically that delineations like "pushing" and "pulling" are for people who aren't cool/strong/skilled enough to use gymnastic rings where, to some degree or another, you do all of them in concert.  

That only really applies to maltese and victorian though.

In a literal/simultaneous sense, yes. My comment was mostly humorous (meant to be anyway), and in reference to, say, a ring strength series, say, in which pull flows seamlessly into press, etc.

I'll ad this two cents (maybe this will help confuse someone).

Pushing and pulling are spacial terms.

Muscles all pull, none push.

A push-up is a pulling exercise (pulling yourself off of the ground).

A pull-up is a pulling exercise (pulling yourself into the air).

Static holds are pulling exercises, but isometric contractions.

Two cents shared.

Though, I will add this third cent: Some pulling is harder than other pulling, because the muscles involved are larger or because of better leverage. "Pulling" tends to be associated with the "back" and "pushing" tends to be associated with the "chest". The "back" is much stronger and has better leverage, but this is because more muscles are recruited in the pulling toward the back than pulling toward the front.

Third cent shared.

Coach Sommer said:

- And then to further completely confuse you; consider that if my maltese COG is exactly level with the rings am I performing a "pull" or a "press"?  A convincing case can be made for either one or actually both at the same time as my maltese position may oscillate slightly.

If this happens in mathematics we tend to say it is neither. So it's neither pressing nor pulling, but something in between. Prulling!

Well, i'm gonna write my oppinion about pull-push, but of course i'm not an expert.

I think a pull move is when your shoulders are under your hands.

Push move when your shoulders are over your hands.

Then ic, inv cross, maltese and victorian are pull-push ( if they are done with the shoudlers are hands level )

Don't you think this is the easiest and simpliest way to know it?

Hmm, I consider back lever to be a pushing exercise rather than pulling. German hang is the result if you let gravity do all the work, to pull body to level, you have to push both arms downward, create a torque in the shoulders and then rest of the body will go up and be at horizontal.

Gentlemen,

Before posting, please read or re-read the rest of the thread so that we do not rediscuss or rexplain items which have already been covered.  New material is of course welcome.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Coach Sommer said:

Gentlemen,

 

Before posting, please read or re-read the rest of the thread so that we do not rediscuss or rexplain items which have already been covered.  New material is of course welcome.

 

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

I'm sorry Coach but cannot understand some things. For example, how the hell you call the move from cross to support " cross pull " when its a push move! it's like a dip but with straigth arm, isn't it?