Kipping Pull Ups

cardio,shoot me

what in the hell, how is this even possible!!?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ27XzR3HJc

Transform

yes and everything he does is just so efficient not to mention he can knock out many other crossfit workouts in super times so he is not a one trick pony

Inspector Coptoor

the thrusters all look very good but what;s the story with the pull ups?
is what he's doing there "kipping"?
would it take an awful lot longer if he didnt swing his legs and did strict pull ups?

cardio,shoot me

Kipping pull ups are alot harder than they look :P I completely failed at them when i tried. Its a skill in itself really

rubadub

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

is what he's doing there "kipping"?
would it take an awful lot longer if he didnt swing his legs and did strict pull ups?

It would take longer, he seemed to do 20 in about 20s. One claimed record for "strict" ones is 46 in a minute

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUfR8N5VDfQ

It is called kipping, I have also read a gymnastics coach call them Chinese pullups more here

cardio,shoot me wrote: »

Kipping pull ups are alot harder than they look :P I completely failed at them when i tried. Its a skill in itself really

They are hard to do, I cannot do any yet, but once you have it down they are easier than normal pullups for most. It is an easy way to get more reps in a set, it is more of a power movement and incorporates the whole body more. I think you will see crossfit guys doing 50 or so kipping ones. A guy called John Curd Edmunds, allegedly did 220 chinups in a row at age 67 but was kipping and using wrist straps too. On some sites you will see people calling it cheating, but they are missing the whole point of it, the crossfit guys obviously know it is easier, lads in pissing contests complain that they are not "real".

In most of these contests you will see the minimum ROM possible being used too, people look to be painfully straining their neck upwards so the chin is reaching the bar.

And there are different styles and amount of kipping, Hanley posted this video ages ago, he is doing far less kipping than the crossfit guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boLl8rGhJvE

Inspector Coptoor

I've no doubt pull ups with kipping is hard aswell.

Thanks for the info

Transform

the powerlifter guy is doing just as much kipping as jason - jason is just more efficient with his kipping and butterflying more

Also there is no minimum range of motion at all - your chin either clears the bar or it does not - simple as.

Now if the wod asked for chest to bar on the pull ups thats different. Also both have to get arms to full extension on the bottom which is unlike what is happening here and not one counts in my book -

All i know is that i can kip ok and at 90kg can bang out 25-30 kipping pullups and this has helped me get my one rep max chin up with perfect form to body weight plus an added 50kg and i can guarantee jason could put up similar numbers also.

All i know is that when speed is called for i kip, when i want to build pure strength i slow it down some and add some weight.

Got to retest my fran time soon

Inspector Coptoor

sorry to be hogging your log cardio!

I'm not criticising either way of doing them. I was only asking what people's definition of a "proper" pull up was and it's clear it varies.
I can do about 3 pull ups at 116kg.

I guess people doing crossfit use kipping and butterflying for speed to bring WOD times as low as possible.
People looking to develop their lats might not extend arms fully at the bottom to keep the lats under constant tension.

my question has been answered, thanks to all who replied.

Hanley

Transform wrote: »

the powerlifter guy is doing just as much kipping as jason - jason is just more efficient with his kipping and butterflying more

Gotta disagree with ya on that. Rhabdo's are much more kipped than Konsti's in my book!! He's not coming thru as much, and Rhabdo's snapping his hips alot more.

Check these out for awesome kips;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA39l8fGeg4

And Liam, re: kipping - they're kipped because you can move thru them faster, so the total workload done in the same amount of time is greater, which leads to more of a cadrio overload (aka metcon in CF speak).

The strict pull up is better for muscular development and strength, but the kip is better for the purposes of what they're trying to achieve when they do a CF workout.

rubadub

Transform wrote: »

the powerlifter guy is doing just as much kipping as jason - jason is just more efficient with his kipping and butterflying more

Then I think we are simply disagreeing about the definition of kipping, I was saying there is different styles and by "less kipping" I meant what you said -less efficient and butterflying less. When doing quick pullups it is hard not to get a little rhythmic kipping going, even the "strict" record guy has a little rhythm going and the powerlifters is just a little more, the crossfit guy is full on swinging really working the whole body a lot more. Each has their place I am not criticising any or saying they are "cheating".

Transform wrote: »

Also there is no minimum range of motion at all - your chin either clears the bar or it does not - simple as.

I was saying in contests you will see people develop the most efficient style. Which might not be the best exercise style to copy for your own particular goals. I cycle a mountain bike to work to burn more calories on the fixed route, if it was a race I would be on a racer, the lads in the cycling forum think you are a nutter if you commute on a mountain bike.

The "rule" is the chin must clear the bar so I always see them straining their neck back, this is what I meant by achieving the minimum ROM possible, a greater ROM is possible, even by keeping their head in a normal position. It is like sprinters stretching their head/torso across the line, it makes sense to do it. I presume the rules do not say you cannot go chest to the bar so a greater ROM is possible, but it would be foolish to do so in a contest.

Transform wrote: »

i can guarantee jason could put up similar numbers also.

I am sure he could, like I said I am not criticising, if he was going chest to the bar then it would be something to point out as a way he could reduce his time!

BossArky

Moved the posts from Cardio's log to a new thread here.

cmyk

Great stuff, so any tips on starting to kip? To be honest I find them more difficult to do than normal pullups? I'm obviously not getting the rhythm right.

Doesn't help that it's not possible in the gym (due to the setup, any sort of swing is not possible) so I have to head to the park to try them.

Transform

yes the park next to me is where i learned on my own just me and the bar and i did not leave until i got it and then muscle ups and on and on.

There is no way you can put up very good times on crossfit workouts that require pull ups without some/lots of kipping and it will take lots of practice.

rubadub

cmyk wrote: »

Great stuff, so any tips on starting to kip?

I can't kip, but there are plenty of youtube tutorials out there, just type in kipping tutorial, many are by crossfit guys. Also if you do quick pullups you really have no choice than to do a little swing, like the guy in the world record video I posted. I actually find it more beneficial looking at lads doing light kipping. Hanley posted a video of him doing a muscle up and it is similar to what I have ended up doing a few times (not the muscle up, the small kick/kip). I just cannot keep the rhythm going after the first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFXXTFqtcIs

I linked this gymnastic coaches instructions here http://gymnasticbodies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1656

now that it is dark earlier I am able to go to a playground which is on my way home, I found that a swing thing is movable on a high bar which is a perfect height for kipping or muscleups so I am going to practise more and more, though these cheap halloween chocolate bars are not helping matters!

That guy doing hundreds I mentioned used wrist straps, so I might give them ago.

cmyk

rubadub wrote: »

I just cannot keep the rhythm going after the first.

This is exactly my problem. I've looked at a good few on youtube over and over, just to see is there a little trick I'm missing. There's one v.good tutorial which I'll dig out. That article on the chinese pullups explains it quite well actually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7spRknkD1hU&feature=related

Transform

well for me there was no trick to it just practice more and as Will (crossfit) mentioned to me - if its important then do it daily

Edwardius

Practice is what got it for me. You have to perfect the timing and no amount of overthinking will help with that!

Transform

Dead Ed wrote: »

Practice is what got it for me. You have to perfect the timing and no amount of overthinking will help with that!

totally agree

token

I've been CF'ing for a good 7 months at this stage but my technique is still not 100% but the most important thing I find to keep the rhythm going is to push yourself away from the bar at the top of the pullup like you were doing a vertical bench press. Sounds straight forward enough but it get's hard when you start to fatigue.

Colm_OReilly

token got there before me. When you're at the top, try and push the bar down and away and this puts you into the next kip.

rubadub

Colm_OReilly wrote: »

try and push the bar down and away and this puts you into the next kip.

I have heard this mentioned before and I think it is part of my problem. I have always used a chinup bar at home starting out and was wary of the bar falling down so was always very slow & controlled. In bars in the park I can do an explosive upward movement but still can not get used to pushing myself forcefully away. Just more getting used to it I suppose. If you watch peoples elbows you can see they change in postition a lot when kipping hard.

Many muscleup tutorials will have kipping tips too.

cmyk

token wrote: »

I've been CF'ing for a good 7 months at this stage but my technique is still not 100% but the most important thing I find to keep the rhythm going is to push yourself away from the bar at the top of the pullup like you were doing a vertical bench press. Sounds straight forward enough but it get's hard when you start to fatigue.

That's good to hear. It's one of those exercises that looks so god damn simple.
I can't dance either so maybe it's my rhythm!

gabgab

Cardio, and anyone else please feel free to head up to Crossfit and have a go and get some pointers on kipping, we would be delighted to have you guys up here

Roper

A lot of pseudo science here lads. I'm not anti-kipping but does anyone have any real data for kipping pull ups versus standard ones? Not too hard to measure and surely some crossfitite has had access to a hrm and has run some numbers?

Transform

my attempt at a few pull ups today - should have done a few more but was not on top form today.

35reps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8L3FSRJWj4

Colm_OReilly

Roper wrote: »

A lot of pseudo science here lads. I'm not anti-kipping but does anyone have any real data for kipping pull ups versus standard ones? Not too hard to measure and surely some crossfitite has had access to a hrm and has run some numbers?

Barry,

What are you looking to measure, exactly?

Colm_OReilly

That reads a lot more aggressively than I wanted.

Roper

Didn't read aggressively at all. Someone earlier said that kipping allowed a greater workload in the given time. I'd like to see some solid data before I bought that.

I'm also not sold on the rationale behind kipping versus strict form pull ups as used in this thread thus far, or in discussions of Crossfit in general. When I ask this question usually I get wishy washy answers, I'm just looking for something empirical. I know you guys also do strict form pull ups too so it's not a style versus style debate, just an enquiry on the rationale behind their use in Crossfit programming.

Vegeta

I'd imagine its a path of least resistance thing

Kipping seems both easier (using more muscles and body momentum) and faster.

So in a timed event or competition environment you'll pick the method which gives the highest number of reps.

If the goal was not speed or number of reps, but strength and muscle development I'd imagine they wouldn't kip.

Roper

Vegeta wrote: »

I'd imagine its a path of least resistance thing

Kipping seems both easier (using more muscles and body momentum) and faster.

So in a timed event or competition environment you'll pick the method which gives the highest number of reps.

If the goal was not speed or number of reps, but strength and muscle development I'd imagine they wouldn't kip.

Well that's what I mean, everyone can "imagine" what it is but I've yet to see any exercise science supporting them as a part of conditioning workouts. Again I'm not anti-kipping, I'm just loooking for hard science. I've seen and done enough stuff that isn't doing what people think it's doing.

If it's just to rack up greater numbers on the pull ups to post better times I've also no problem with that.

cmyk

Regarding the 'speed' this goes some way to explain that...

Roper

Okay, some good info on that forum, but I've seen the forum answers before and while some of the guys seem quite knowledgable, they're not verifiable.

The example in that link about kips being 54% more powerful is something like what I'm looking for. However I don't think the science behind that adds up. They're using the simple Power formula Power=work/time which is fine for you and I to use as a general rule of thumb, but it's not the formula for time that a scientician would use.

Secondly, there's an added value in the equation which is the momentum generated by the swinging action which requires little force from the person to get it going, and from the the Second Law we know that every pull up generates momentum for the next one. I have no idea what this would add to the pull but I would guess it to be significant.

All of this would be very easily assessed. All you would need is an accelerometer, a group of athletes who could both kip and do strict pull ups, a heart rate monitor to test the actual training effect, and some boffins well versed in physics and biology.

cmyk

Well the article seems to suggest that's it's based more so around the speed of the movement in comparison to a strict pullup with the exception of one poster.

It also throws something else up I've been wondering for a while. How are the WOD RX'd? I feel like I'm somewhat cheating when I scale a workout.

Surely taking in comparison two people at different weights with similar levels of fitness, the person at the heavier weight will find it easier...and therefore quicker to move that amount of weight? Are the bodyweight WOD's more comparable?

For an example I'll use Hanley's fran the other week, without going back on the post I think he said he is around the 95-100kg mark, I'm 78kg and my regular lifts would be significantly lower, does that not mean he already has an advantage? So if fran was RX'd at thrusters of %bodyweight not be a fairer test? Apologies for dragging off topic.

Hanley

cmyk wrote: »

Well the article seems to suggest that's it's based more so around the speed of the movement in comparison to a strict pullup with the exception of one poster.

It also throws something else up I've been wondering for a while. How are the WOD RX'd? I feel like I'm somewhat cheating when I scale a workout.

Surely taking in comparison two people at different weights with similar levels of fitness, the person at the heavier weight will find it easier...and therefore quicker to move that amount of weight? Are the bodyweight WOD's more comparable?

For an example I'll use Hanley's fran the other week, without going back on the post I think he said he is around the 95-100kg mark, I'm 78kg and my regular lifts would be significantly lower, does that not mean he already has an advantage? So if fran was RX'd at thrusters of %bodyweight not be a fairer test? Apologies for dragging off topic.

yeah, but I'm pulling much more weight on the pull ups. And what about the WODs thar involve running etc, and the more long distance ones? The heavier guy doesn't Get to scale down the run distance like.

That kinda attitude annoys me (not giving out) cos tbh trying to move thru CF workouts at 100kg is REALLY ****ing tough, the one advantage you have is your strength and then ppl wanna take it away and handicap you even further!!

BobbyOLeary

This is where focusing on one particular CF workout brings about problems. I reckon Hanley does have an advantage over most of us at Fran but something like Annie

50-40-30-20-10

Double Unders
Sit-ups

he's going to have a much harder time than me. Similarly stuff involving high rep muscle ups (30 Muscle ups for time or Jason) he's going to have a harder time at than me. It balances out in the end really. Glassman described it in a journal article a while back something like this:

"The big guys struggle with the bodyweight stuff while the light guys struggle with the weight, and the guys in the middle are struggling with both."

Transform

totally agree - it balances out in the end and really its best to be rounded at most things which shows through in competitions where the overall winner might not win say all 8 events but places well in all.

Which is what almost all sports are like e.g. tennis, you are going to have the big hitters and then you have the grinders with great footwork but not total power/strength guys. Take andrew murray - too skinny at first to be a top player and in one year, bang 1-2 stone heavier and can compete with the best.

IMO The guy/girl in the middle generally is the best overall athlete however you are going to have the total surprise packages of guys/girls that go against the trend.

Hanley

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

This is where focusing on one particular CF workout brings about problems. I reckon Hanley does have an advantage over most of us at Fran but something like Annie

50-40-30-20-10

Double Unders
Sit-ups

he's going to have a much harder time than me. Similarly stuff involving high rep muscle ups (30 Muscle ups for time or Jason) he's going to have a harder time at than me. It balances out in the end really. Glassman described it in a journal article a while back something like this:

"The big guys struggle with the bodyweight stuff while the light guys struggle with the weight, and the guys in the middle are struggling with both."

Yah exactly... Like I can hold my own, and do quite well in the sub 10 minute weighted workouts, hell even my Cindy score is ok (19 rounds + pull ups last time I checked 2-3 months ago), but anything over that sorta time period gets very hard very quickly. Like I dread the thought of the chipper workout that's probably gonna be part of the next invitational cos I know I'm dead on it, same with Murph, that was HORRIBLE because I'm so heavy. Same with burpees (aka the worst exercise ever)

Transform

and i would be the opposite - love the longer ones yet do not hate the shorter ones i just get on with it.

d'Oracle

Roper wrote: »

Okay, some good info on that forum, but I've seen the forum answers before and while some of the guys seem quite knowledgable, they're not verifiable.

The example in that link about kips being 54% more powerful is something like what I'm looking for. However I don't think the science behind that adds up. They're using the simple Power formula Power=work/time which is fine for you and I to use as a general rule of thumb, but it's not the formula for time that a scientician would use.

Secondly, there's an added value in the equation which is the momentum generated by the swinging action which requires little force from the person to get it going, and from the the Second Law we know that every pull up generates momentum for the next one. I have no idea what this would add to the pull but I would guess it to be significant.

All of this would be very easily assessed. All you would need is an accelerometer, a group of athletes who could both kip and do strict pull ups, a heart rate monitor to test the actual training effect, and some boffins well versed in physics and biology.

With my engineers hat on.
I am also skeptical of Couches definition of Power with regard to the kip.

It makes the assumption that the movement can be approximated to a single object, moving through a one dimensional plane which could be applied to a strict pullup but not the kipping pullup.

Using work as a parameter falls over cos the kipping pullup is a complex movement, involving horizontal forces and torques which will have a net work of zero in terms of the vertical motion.

If you describe power as P = F.v, then its also a big approximation that could be valid for the strict but not the kip.

The only way you could establish the work done or the overall power in the movement, is to assess the rotational work output in the swing, the push away at the top of the swing and the vertical pull at the top of the swing. Then you would have to assign force components to these.
Then you would need to assign a force component to the momentum which is transferred in the swing.

This makes me think that the newtonian method (I.e. F=ma, W=F/t) would be fairly useless in analysis of the energy system that is the kipping pullup.

It also makes me think that they may be overstating the effect that the higher velocity would have on any resultant vertical output. That is with all the assistance from pushing and swinging they may be significantly reducing the required output from the body.

Finally, It thinking about it makes me think its a very different exercise to the strict, so it seems pretty dumb comparing the two.

Hanley

d'Oracle wrote: »

With my engineers hat on.
I am also skeptical of Couches definition of Power with regard to the kip.

Tbh, every time something is "defined" by Crossfit, it's done in a way to make Crossfit appear better than other ways of training. Take their definition of fitness like... I don't even bother paying attention to it anymore, just take it for what it is!!

Finally, It thinking about it makes me think its a very different exercise to the strict, so it seems pretty dumb comparing the two.

It's pretty much 100% absolutely different imo. Well, 100%'s a bit extreme, but I wouldn't the kips a muscle or strength builder at all!!

Edwardius

Roper wrote: »

All of this would be very easily assessed. All you would need is an accelerometer, a group of athletes who could both kip and do strict pull ups, a heart rate monitor to test the actual training effect, and some boffins well versed in physics and biology.

No point in ****ing about with the mechanics of this as a human body is a complicated thing when in motion and most of the mass is does not form anywhere near a rigid body. Trying to simplify this is silly too and fails to take into consideration a whole bunch of important factors. The "power" metric (force*distance/time) is far too simplified and is only useful in certain situations. I remember reading somewhere that you can get "fran" like power outputs on some resistance machines, so if that's the case why aren't CF using leg presses etc in metcons? I think they lost their way when they started defining fitness as "increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains", which could mean pretty much anything as opposed to the definition they laid out at the start (the 10 physical fitness parameters or whatever) which, whether you agree or disagree with the use of "fitness", was definite and consisted of some very definite parameters which were measurable. Now we have everyone on the cf boards ranting on about integrating the "area under the curve", rambling about how they're right because it'z teh phyzicsss and blabbing on about "graphs" and "data", it isn't doing CFHQ any favours as it adds to the dogma and seems to be driving people away. Screw analysing power and work with a simplified and inappropriate model, do it with movements. Someone who has a sub 50s 400m run a 230kg deadlift and everything in between doesn't need to integrate an imaginary graph to tell them where they are.

Regarding kipping: it will take me less time to kip 100 pullups than do 100 strict ones. Why? muscular fatigue. If I do 15 strict pullups (fairly close to my max) and 15 kipping ones there will be some time difference. If I move it to 100, the kips will win by a mile because I have to rest with the strict ones. do I get more of a CV benefit from squatting 100kgs for 5 in a minute or 60kg for 30 in a minute? Also, kipping works well for for shoulder flexibility and has some other benefits. Like everything else it's a tool and has a purpose, a different purpose to a strict pullup. Saying that one is better than another is like saying a van is better than a tree. Re: the momentum... where does it come from? it comes initially from the athlete doing work with his muscles

I think the hrm is the best idea here. I'll have a go at this next week and see what the craic is.

hmmm, I think I've probably just rambled out what everyone else said previously.

Roper

Dead Ed wrote: »

I think the hrm is the best idea here. I'll have a go at this next week and see what the craic is.

hmmm, I think I've probably just rambled out what everyone else said previously.

If you could do that I would be interested to see the results.

d'Oracle, that's a good post and reflects my thoughts on the matter. The only thing that I would disagree with is your contention that the Newtonian method is useless. It's all there it's just complex!

cmyk

Hanley wrote: »

yeah, but I'm pulling much more weight on the pull ups. And what about the WODs thar involve running etc, and the more long distance ones? The heavier guy doesn't Get to scale down the run distance like.

That kinda attitude annoys me (not giving out) cos tbh trying to move thru CF workouts at 100kg is REALLY ****ing tough, the one advantage you have is your strength and then ppl wanna take it away and handicap you even further!!

That's fair enough, I guess it's just that fran gets thrown around more than other workouts in here.

The way I look at the kipping pullup (and this may be very simplistic) is that in a nutshell all training is pushing for an improvement of some sort, be it in strength/power/skill/speed, in CF, it's normally for time/speed. I see the kipping pullup as simply a more efficient movement and therefore faster?

d'Oracle

Roper wrote: »

The only thing that I would disagree with is your contention that the Newtonian method is useless. It's all there it's just complex!

:pac:

I could expand on the point, but this is hardly the place for a discussion about Newtonian vs Lagrangian analysis.

Roper

d'Oracle wrote: »

:pac:

I could expand on the point, but this is hardly the place for a discussion about Newtonian vs Lagrangian analysis.

I ain't no sub atomic particle so Newton applies! Seriously though I'm not an engineer or a physicist so I can only speculate as to what the best method would be.

What really surprises me though is that Crossfit is probably 10-15 years old now and it seems no one has examined this. The "power" of the kip is often cited as the reason for it's inclusion in CF workouts but if there's no actual science to prove that then surely there's a chance that you're not getting what you think you're getting, either in power or the metabolic effect?

As a adendum to this, I want to say I like a lot of what Crossfit does and I particularly like Crossfit Ireland and I know they do good things there. A lot of times you ask questions on the web and people assume you're picking a fight but this is just curiosity.

rubadub

Roper wrote: »

A lot of pseudo science here lads.

I would describe the vast majority of "data" I have seen on stuff like this to be pseudo science. There is an air of the emperors new clothes about many studies and "data", it is very easy to twist formulas etc into your own favour -I have done it myself many times. They begin by (mis)applying physics formulae blinding the layman reader with these unquestionable truths, sneering at people who would dare question the mighty Newton, when Newton himself is probably cringing in his grave seeing how people can get stuff so wrong.

Serious amounts of Chinese whispering and misinterpretation takes place.

Roper wrote: »

I ain't no sub atomic particle so Newton applies!

Yes, but not in the ridiculously basic forms I have seen used. Like work= force x distance, I have seen this on many many pages trying to discuss merits of low vs high reps etc. To show the flaws of many of these things just think in extremes. Using some "formula" a guy will say a lad doing 1 rep deadift with 100kg has done the same "work" as a guy doing 1000 deadlifts with 100g.

Momentum, inertia, the changing position of the body etc will make for incredibly complex calculations. They should really be thinking what power/forces are need for a humanoid robot to perform the movement! not a simple 75kg block of concrete being moved up & down.

I would view them as quite different exercises too, you can see this from some statements,

I am not sure what to make of the dead hang/kipped discrepancy. I bounce between the 44-51 kipped pull up range and 28-31 deadhangs. My partner in crime here at Crossfit NorCal, Nicki, has 3-4 dead hangs and 25-30 kipps.

There was mention of different, stronger muscle groups being able to be employed when kipping. I find difficulty in lowering myself quickly, if you instantly are dropping you are not getting the full effect you usually would from a slow controlled negative. They are pushing away from the bar so combining their force with gravity to get a more powerful swing. Watching videos reminds me of a kids swing, whipping your head back and legs harder to get higher.

I imagine if you could get a similar swinging bicep curl motion you could get a good rhythm going, I find I can with pushups too, dropping quickly which avoids the negative phase so I can get far more reps out by avoiding this fatigue.

d'Oracle

rubadub wrote: »

Yes, but not in the ridiculously basic forms I have seen used. Like work= force x distance, I have seen this on many many pages trying to discuss merits of low vs high reps etc. To show the flaws of many of these things just think in extremes. Using some "formula" a guy will say a lad doing 1 rep deadift with 100kg has done the same "work" as a guy doing 1000 deadlifts with 100g.

I think Roper was joking there.

rubadub wrote: »

I imagine if you could get a similar swinging bicep curl motion you could get a good rhythm going, I find I can with pushups too, dropping quickly which avoids the negative phase so I can get far more reps out by avoiding this fatigue.

Reminds me, I have seen guys with barbells or dumbbells doing a hip thrust action at the bottom of a bicep curl. Kipping curl?

rubadub

d'Oracle wrote: »

I think Roper was joking there.

Ah yes I know, and he already questioned it, I was just going further and showing how flawed it is. Your post said it very well.

d'Oracle wrote: »

Reminds me, I have seen guys with barbells or dumbbells doing a hip thrust action at the bottom of a bicep curl. Kipping curl?

You will see people dismiss "cheaters" just like kippers (never saw that written before!). But many know exactly what they are at, I would often cheat curl to get an extra negative rep in. Also since the kippers push away at the top of the bar it could be viewed as a push & pull exercise, I am not sure how forcefully they do push.

It would be nice to see empirical numbers, Transform had said he kips and it increased his 1RM chin, but if he had spent that same time doing strict ones would he be better at the 1RM chin. But of course you could improve in other areas, so there will always be debate. And it could just not work for another person in the same way.

d'Oracle

Oh THATS what a cheat curl is.....

Transform

i really get bored after buliding up a certain movement after a while e.g. weighted chins so the kipping was just another thing to work on and i still do weighted chins.

Roper

rubadub that's nicely put.

If you read enough actual sport's science/physiology you'll note that firstly, you'll rarely see newton simply applied, and secondly that it's all either directly from or based upon studies from circa 1950-1975 and that little of any note has happened since.

Essentially that's my point, if kipping is so good/powerful, why hasn't it been integrated into every top athlete's workout?

Once again I want to state that I have no problem with it per se, just the attitude behind it. I suspect kipping is popular in CF because the workouts can be done faster with it. If so, fine.