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.
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."
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.
d'Oracle wrote: » With my engineers hat on. I am also skeptical of Couches definition of Power with regard to the kip.
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.
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.
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!!
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!
d'Oracle wrote: » :pac: I could expand on the point, but this is hardly the place for a discussion about Newtonian vs Lagrangian analysis.
Roper wrote: » A lot of pseudo science here lads.
Roper wrote: » I ain't no sub atomic particle so Newton applies!
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.
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.
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.
d'Oracle wrote: » I think Roper was joking there.
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?
Roper wrote: » If you read enough actual sport's science/physiology you'll note that firstly, you'll rarely see newton simply applied.
Essentially that's my point, if kipping is so good/powerful, why hasn't it been integrated into every top athlete's workout?
kipping pullups are a useful tool for easily increasing total amount of repetitions as well as developing elasticity in the shoulder girdle. They are also beneficial is developing a sense of rhythm and coordination. But most importantly, Chinese Pullups are an important initial first step in preparing the shoulder girdle to safely handle the stresses involved with high level plyometric-type elements.
Colm_OReilly wrote: » 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.
d'Oracle wrote: » I look forward to it, but I have a feeling there isn't really a fire.
Captain Furball wrote: » I'm not sure what it is your even discussing any more.
d'Oracle wrote: » Started as a discussion on Kipping pullups, then progressed (briefly) to kipping versus non kipping. Then became the science behind kipping and how it may be misrepresented. Now it seems to be a dissemination of any relationship between the two and is easing back towards being about kipping pullups. Simple.
Roper wrote: » Essentially that's my point, if kipping is so good/powerful, why hasn't it been integrated into every top athlete's workout?
BobbyOLeary wrote: » I hope this doesn't come across as defensive as it's really not meant to be. Maybe it hasn't been included into every top athlete's workout because it's better suited for GPP? Move away from athletes for a minute and think of the armed forces and police. There's been a big push for integration of CrossFit into these services with USMC, Navy SEALs, and the Jacksonville PD reporting positive results from CF and the inclusion of the kipping pullup. They're the armed forces equivalent of top athletes.
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.
