Annoying Gym Behaviour - Mk2(?)

GreeBo wrote: »

They are still expending pretty much the same energy as they are still lifting their body weight by the same amount.

Except they aren't lifting their whole body weight.
Any pressure you put on the support is weight you aren't lifting.
Even a few Kgs would have a big impact.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Anytime I've seen it done, the person is holding the bars from the go. Which indicates it reduces the load as opposed to for balance. I'm not sure people really lose balance when they tire on incline treadmill...they do lose the ability to keep up the pace at the incline.

Just to clarify, in case we're talking about different things, I'm talking about people setting the incline high and then hanging on to the rails.

They'd usually be better off doing a lower incline and not hanging on than using the incline that means they're hanging on from the start.

It'd the equivalent of doing half squats and thinking you're doing full squats. Not sure why it would be annoying to anyone else though

I dont think its equivalent to half squats at all to be fair.
Half squat means half the range of motion, so force is 9.8m/s/s times the weight being lifted (body weight included)
Energy required is force times the distance, so half squat = half distance = half the energy required.

Mellor wrote: »

Except they aren't lifting their whole body weight.
Any pressure you put on the support is weight you aren't lifting.
Even a few Kgs would have a big impact.

How much weight can you take on your arms considering the position of these bars?
So taking an average weight of 75KG I'd argue that a) 5kg isn't significant and b) that the 5KG doesnt just disappear, the person is lifting that weight off the machine so expending the same energy just now using arms/back instead of legs, buts its still a very small amount of weight.

Your argument would make sense if they were resting the weight on the machine, i.e. the machine was doing the work, but how much weight can you rest on the machine? I'd argue its even less than 5KG.

Now holding onto anything for stability will disengage your core, but thats not really what we are talking about here I think?

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont think its equivalent to half squats at all to be fair.
Half squat means half the range of motion, so force is 9.8m/s/s times the weight being lifted (body weight included)
Energy required is force times the distance, so half squat = half distance = half the energy required.

I didn't mention energy expenditure. Energy expenditure isn't a measure of a full squat. The principle is the same: you're not doing what you think you are.

As an aside, saying a half squat burns half the energy of a full squat is assuming the resistance profile of a squat is the same through the full range of motion. It isn't.

This is an example of what I'm talking about:

Holding onto the bar on an incline as above is taking out the incline. Be as well off walking naturally on the flat...less likely to injure yourself as well

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I didn't mention energy expenditure. Energy expenditure isn't a measure of a full squat. The principle is the same: you're not doing what you think you are.

As an aside, saying a half squat burns half the energy of a full squat is assuming the resistance profile of a squat is the same through the full range of motion. It isn't.

This is an example of what I'm talking about:

Holding onto the bar on an incline as above is taking out the incline. Be as well off walking naturally on the flat...less likely to injure yourself as well

The energy required to squat the first 5 inches is the same as the last 5 inches, you may think its harder due to flexibility and ability to engage specific muscles in specific positions, but the universe doesn't care.

Its still easier to walk on the flat than it is to walk on an incline holding the bars, at a bare minimum you are working your upper body to hold you in position and fighting gravity.

As for why people find other people doing it annoying....I have no idea!

IvoryTower

usually we would say this deserves its own thread, but it really doesn't

GreeBo wrote: »

How much weight can you take on your arms considering the position of these bars?
So taking an average weight of 75KG I'd argue that a) 5kg isn't significant and b) that the 5KG doesnt just disappear, the person is lifting that weight off the machine so expending the same energy just now using arms/back instead of legs, buts its still a very small amount of weight.

Energy used when running is roughly mass x distance. So even 5kg would be significant. And thats noticable if you do it,its physically easier.

Your argument would make sense if they were resting the weight on the machine, i.e. the machine was doing the work, but how much weight can you rest on the machine? I'd argue its even less than 5KG.

Stand on a scale and place you hands on the counter, you don't need to press hard to knock off 5-10kg.

That's basically how weight distribution works in grappling. Any contact with the mat removes pressure from your opponent.

Mellor wrote: »

Energy used when running is roughly mass x distance. So even 5kg would be significant. And thats noticable if you do it,its physically easier.

Stand on a scale and place you hands on the counter, you don't need to press hard to knock off 5-10kg.

That's basically how weight distribution works in grappling. Any contact with the mat removes pressure from your opponent.

Rather than keep the thread off topic I'm going to stop after this point/post.

The 5KG doesnt vanish, if the person is supporting the 5KG with their arms rather than 100% with their legs, they are still supporting that 5KG so your running with 5KG less weight analogy doesnt work in this instance.

You need to press with 5KG of force to lower your "weight" by 5KG on a scales, thats how it works according to Newton's third law. So your legs are supporting 5KG less but your arms are now supporting 5KG more, its a zero sum game.

GreeBo wrote: »

The energy required to squat the first 5 inches is the same as the last 5 inches, you may think its harder due to flexibility and ability to engage specific muscles in specific positions, but the universe doesn't care.

Hmm, That's incorrect. The universe cares about force, not mass.

Overhead press 40kg. It's relatively easy.
Now try hold it at arms length. Not so easy.
Same weight, different forces. Same applies to squats.

GreeBo wrote: »

The 5KG doesnt vanish, if the person is supporting the 5KG with their arms rather than 100% with their legs, they are still supporting that 5KG so your running with 5KG less weight analogy doesnt work in this instance.

You need to press with 5KG of force to lower your "weight" by 5KG on a scales, thats how it works according to Newton's third law. So your legs are supporting 5KG less but your arms are now supporting 5KG more, its a zero sum game.

It's a treadmill. You burn energy by moving mass with your legs.
Your arms are static. If they support your weight, they do the same work whether it's going 5km/h or 15km/h.
If what you say was true you could put all your weight on your hands are crank it up to 30km/h.

But I agree, we're way off topic now.
Nobody annoyed me in gym today. Anybody see any hats?

GreeBo wrote: »

You need to press with 5KG of force to lower your "weight" by 5KG on a scales, thats how it works according to Newton's third law. So your legs are supporting 5KG less but your arms are now supporting 5KG more, its a zero sum game.

Newton's second law says that the acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force. Your assertion earlier was that because acceleration due to gravity is a constant and the barbell weight is constant, that the force is constant is wrong because you haven't allowed for any other forces that come into play or any acceleration outside of gravitational acceleration.

The force isn't constant.

ButtersSuki

Ah lads come on will ye?

Can we have less of the physics lessons?

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Ah lads come on will ye?

Can we have less of the physics lessons?

Yes, can we get back to the abomination that is people wearing hats.

Triceratops Ballet

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Yes, can we get back to the abomination that is people wearing hats.

what about people wearing headphones OVER hats!! how can they hear the music properly?! maybe it doesn't matter if you look super cool!

2nd Row Donkey

Saw a guy on a threadmill yesterday doing an inclined walk while holding the rails. He was wearing mma style under armour , a hat and a pair of oversized headphones. He may or may not have been using multiple lockers in the changing room and the use or otherwise of locks on the aforementioned lockers is unknown.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

what about people wearing headphones OVER hats!! how can they hear the music properly?! maybe it doesn't matter if you look super cool!

maybe there is no music and they're trying to keep the voices out

Mellor wrote: »

maybe there is no music and they're trying to keep the voices out

Or keep the voices in...so no one around knows that they're onto them.

Barna77

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

what about people wearing headphones OVER hats!! how can they hear the music properly?! maybe it doesn't matter if you look super cool!

Hear, hear!

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

what about people wearing headphones OVER hats!! how can they hear the music properly?! maybe it doesn't matter if you look super cool!

Worse, I saw a guy wearing a hat over his headphones!

D'Agger

I bought a lock for the gym as I hadn't been using one since in joined in November - TK Maxx is where it's at folks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8K1fTZaR7w

I saw a guy wearing a hat over his hat.

Caliden

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I saw a guy wearing a hat over his hat.

Ah Johnny Two Hats

Circuital

I opened 4 lockers this morning before I found one that was empty.

silverharp

Circuital wrote: »

I opened 4 lockers this morning before I found one that was empty.

trick is to go for the ones on the bottom

Circuital wrote: »

I opened 4 lockers this morning before I found one that was empty.

Try them the other way around next time.

Pussyhands

Circuital wrote: »

I opened 4 lockers this morning before I found one that was empty.

I never lock my locker. haha

ittakestwo

Pussyhands wrote: »

I never lock my locker. haha

I don't either as I know I would lose the key on the gym floor. But I leave the strap of my sports bag sticking out a bit from under the locker door so people know it is in use.

ButtersSuki

ittakestwo wrote: »

I don't either as I know I would lose the key on the gym floor. But I leave the strap of my sports bag sticking out a bit from under the locker door so people know it is in use.

Combo lock?

D'Agger

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Combo lock?

I'll say it again - TK Maxx

GrumPy

Circuital wrote: »

I opened 4 lockers this morning before I found one that was empty.

This, this is the worst.
Drives me insane. Makes me want to move stuff to different lockers to mess with people's heads.
Also, people playing with their phones for ages in the changing rooms? Are you changing, showering, leaving, going? Play with your phone elsewhere, you're in the way!

Triceratops Ballet

not gym behaviour but I really hate those hip thrust benches, with that raised platform at the front if your thighs are in anyway big dragging the bar up to your hips is like the most excruciating quad rolling ever!! someone tell me this is a common thing and I'm not just using it wrong!