Kipping Pull Ups

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

I really need to chime in on this, but I'm not that eloquent in the mornings and try not to post over the weekend. Hopefully I'll be back on later to clear up some things/add more fuel to the fire.

was in a gym in the states ages ago and asked a massive guy why he was doing overhand kipping pullups no joke he said

"boy when you running from the poooooolice you gonna jump over the wall like this (underhand and slow and controlled) or like this (kipping)!!!"

Re-reading through this now that my bloody wisdom teeth aren't aching any more (self pity part of the post over) I'm not sure there's a lot I can add.

It seems to come down to a few things for me.

Power/Science/Physics
I'm not well versed enough in physics to do any sort of calculation on power, momentum, etc (Will would be, but he doesn't post here).

In a very simplistic science approach, as Ed has pointed out, you can do more pull ups in a shorter time with kip than you can without. Speaking purely in terms of vertical displacement on the centre of gravity (which we'll take to be the hips) 20 kipping pull ups will achieve that aim faster than strict pull ups will do that. So in that sense they're more 'powerful'.

There's a contention in CrossFit that power a ~= fitness. i.e. if you can do the same work (which we'll say is a set task) in less time, or more work in a set time period, you're fitter. It's loosely defined, but I think it's a good working definition.

I'll fully accept that the definitions are ill-defined in all of this, and as for emprical based studies, I don't know of any.


Training Effect
Greg Everett, in the Performance Menu outlined some of the pros and cons of the kipping pull up

Description: This type of kipping pull-up is the most similar to the glide kip used in gymnastics, although the two movements are quite different. What they share is a longer range of motion of the whole body and a more fluid transition from horizontal to vertical movement, distinguishing them from the frog-kick or butterfly kips. Initiating the movement with a forward push of the head and chest through the arms to arch the body under the bar, the athlete will pull the hips back to reverse the arch. As this arch is forming, the athlete will lift the knees and pop the hips up toward the bar, briefly unloading a portion of the athlete’s bodyweight, while then pulling the chest up to the bar with the arms. To return to the bottom, the athlete pushes back away from the bar to enter into an arc similar to the one followed on the way up. This reduces the strain on the elbows and shoulders as well as drives the athlete smoothly into the forward arch that will begin the subsequent pull-up.

Benefits: This kip variation involves the most forward movement of the body and the greatest range of motion for the shoulders, consequently making it the most beneficial for shoulder and upper back mobility. Because of the much greater elastic loading and momentum achieved in this movement relative to other kip variations, the traditional kip offers the most potential for height relative to the bar. With enough effort, this kip can easily propel the athlete’s waist to the bar.

Drawbacks: The long range of motion that gives this kip its primary benefits are also drawbacks in some senses—it makes the movement slow relative to the frog-kick and butterfly kip, and accordingly, is not ideal for use in workouts in which the athlete is attempting to complete pull-ups as quickly as possible. That said, they are still useful in metabolic conditioning because they require more effort and consequently improve the athlete’s capacity through system improvements rather than increases in movement economy.
Applications: For athletes not in need of metabolic conditioning, the traditional kip should be used in addition to deadhang variations to improve and maintain shoulder mobility and connective tissue strength. It’s also a convenient exercise to introduce and practice hip speed and body coordination.

In addition to this, the metabolic conditioning effect of the kip is gonna get you through your workout faster than the strict. So yeah, we use it because it's faster.

We also train weighted pull ups and dead hang pull ups as well in our warm up and strength work. Just the kip is preferred for metcons.

I've prob rambled on enough and still not covered everything here but sure...