what if the guy with short legs outweights you by 30 kilograms? that is 30 kilograms more that he has to hold, and his legs are probably heavier than yours. what if, as in my original argument, which you are conveniently ignoring to present your own unrelated although valid statements to disagree with mine, the guy is exactly the same as you, but bigger. whose L-sit is more impressive now? since an L-sit is an isometric hold, which are generally not done with weights AFAIK, let's use other exercises as an example. i weight 52 kilograms, john doe weights 100. if i do a pistol squat, i'm moving pretty much my full weight on one leg, same for john doe. by doing the easier, bilateral version of the exercise, the weight one can move is actually more than double that of the unilateral version, so i should (at least assuming i had enough ankle mobility and core stability to do a proper pistol instead of those counter-weighted things i do) be able to theoretically squat near 100 kilograms at least once without excessive effort. john doe should be able to squat over 200. so john doe can just happily do pistol squats and get more leg work than he's likely to ever need, unless he's a competitive lifter or has really high performance requirements, whereas if i were to want a comparative level of absolute strength after achieving proper pistols (and being so small, i am of the opinion that i do need quite a bit strength), i'd need to lift some heavy weights. "take two guys with a 30 kilo difference who can both do exactly the same bodyweight feats" *ahem* ಠ_ಠ
Is that you're answer for everything? Do pushups? Because, it's a bit simplistic and doesn't really cover a decent full body workout!
I don't think this is correct. Your body weight remains the same, regardless of whether the exercise is bilateral or unilateral. If you weigh 52kg and John Doe weighs 100, you both do a single leg squat (the name pistol makes no sense, it's an SLS), than what happens is instead of you lifting your 52kg with two legs (26kg per leg) you lift 52kg with one leg. The same goes for John Doe. In all honesty, I don't know how to calculate the relationship in increase in weight by decrease in leverage. If I knew that, and exactly how much leverage an exercise had, I would be able to calculate the true weight being moved. Regarding your question, "take two guys with a 30 kilo difference who can both do exactly the same bodyweight feats," the person who is heavier is most likely to be stronger (as I've already said); however, I do think that when somebody has an extra 13.6kg of muscle on him, he should be stronger anyway. AND... I think Aki Oshin likes push ups...
what is not correct? when did i ever say my bodyweight changes? i don't even understand what you're trying to say after that. look, it's simple, i weight x amount, and i have two legs, so that's around x/2 for a two legged squat, and around x for a single legged squat (what the hell does it being called pistol have to do with it? ffs it's easier to write anyway), taking into account the weight of the leg itself, which i'm not lifting fully. if john doe weights 2x, he is lifting around x with each leg on a squat, and 2x on a pistol. now a two legged squat is an inherently balanced movement, whereas a pistol is not. for a pistol, you need to keep your bodyweight stable over a single point, while also resisting rotational force on your leg, which adds to the effort, making the pistol more than twice as hard to do as the normal squat, so it stands to reason that if i can do a pistol with proper form, then i should be able to squat more than twice my bodyweight. whatever the end result is, multiply it by two for john doe, and the end results will be hugely different. well duh, of course he'll be stronger, because he... wait for it.... moves his own weight, which is greater.
The amount you can pistol does not effect your squat much. As far as workload goes the heavier guy doing a bodyweight movement is moving more weight, he is heavier... Fun reading: http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/unilateral_movements_make_you_weak http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_top_10_unilateral_exercises
*jawdrop* *turns to ash and is slowly disintegrated by the errant winds* there goes my argument about pistol squats then
They're defiantly a great exercise and on you should keep doing. Take the you and John doe example, when he does a squat and you do a squat with 50kg on your back, theoretically you are shifting the same weight, however doing a squat with BW on your back has a very different hormonal response and muscular recruitment to big John doing a pistol. FWIW I think pistol is a pretty catchy name
pistols ftw. although my argument was more along the lines of, if i'm smaller, i won't shift as much weight as john doe with my own body, so i should increase the load by other means (ie weights) to get to a comparative level of strength. john doe will take more time to be able to do bodyweight feats than i will if he's bigger, so he would at first have no need for additional loading. of course i could move to harder bodyweight variations, but so could john doe.
Just a question, but why worry about 'relative strength'? Why not just get strong? Unless you're competing at a weight class I don't see the positives of being relatively stronger than a guy twice your size but with only one and a half times your strength. Also how are you calculating relative strength? For arguments sake I'm near enough 90Kg. I can probably knock out about 20+ Dead Hang chinups on a good day. Put me in a 30Kg weight vest and I'll be lucky to get 3. So that's a 33% increase in weight but an 85% decrease in performance, sure it's not muscle but it could be fat. There's no obvious link, and judging different people with different physiology, limb lengths and so on and the calculation is a mine field. Yet people chuck the phrase around like it's an obvious comparison.
I suggest that if you don't have anything else to add to the discussion other than ridiculous 'do pushups' posts, you stop posting or get considered a troll for pointless thread disruption.
Do you remember typing this? That is essentially a 2x body weight squat, no? You weigh 52 kg, you squat 100 kg. 100/52 is 1.92307692, which can be rounded to 2. A 2x body weight squat. Additionally, you should clarify whether you meant a "pistol" squat or a back/front squat in this section, "...theoretically squat near..." Why are you saying you can't understand what I said? I should be the one saying that. Your big block of text has no capitals, and, quite frankly, is difficult to read. Even if your post made sense, it would still be hard to understand. If you weigh 50 kg, you are lifting only 50 kg in a SLS/pistol. The maximum amount of weight you can lift without adding external resistance is 50 kg. You could using your ear, it wouldn't matter. Your body weight is your body weight, and it is what it is. When John Doe, who weighs 100 kg (double your weight) does a SLS, then yes, he is lifting more weight. That is clear, and I've already said this more than once. Even though he is lifting more weight, he also weighs more, so even though you: a) weigh 50 kg, and b) can lift 50 kg and he: a) weigh 100 kg b) can lift 100 kg Your relative strength IS THE SAME. If he has two times more muscle than you, then he SHOULD be able to lift two times as much weight, no? Or at least something similar. If he can lift less, despite weighing more, than he has less relative strength than you. No. That is incorrect. I know that. I've already said I know that. Parenthesis contain idle, and sometimes a bit disconnected sentences. It doesn't have much bearing on the issue being discussed, but the name "pistol" itself has absolutely nothing to do with squatting with one leg. Plus, it's easier to write SLS for single leg squat, which describes the exercise better anyway.
You're right, it is a rather shaky definition. There are many, many factors in determining someones strength in particular movements. However, I have always seen relative strength defined as simply as possible in the weight/strength way. For example, a man weighing 75 kg who deadlifts 200 kg has a 2.6x bodyweight lift, which would be higher than a man weighing 100 kg with the same lift. In arguments like this, I generally assume that the two individuals in question are identical in limb length and anatomical advantages/disadvantages. I agree, though. Concentrate on getting beastly strong and lean. Relative strength is only applicable in specific competitions.
yes? if i interpreted the quotes corrected, i think i said that, then you said "this is not correct" and proceeded to say what i think was the same thing i just said. i then asked you what was not correct, and you once again said the same thing. i meant a squat. attacking the way i write will not get you any prizes. i said i did not understand you because you claimed that what i said was incorrect, then you wrote a non-sequitur ("Your body weight remains the same, regardless of whether the exercise is bilateral or unilateral."), then apparently stated the same thing i initially stated. or at least so it appeared to me. yes? and? and? i'm not talking about relative strength, i'm talking about absolute strength. what i am saying is that john doe and me do not need to train the same way, because i, by being lighter, will develop bodyweight exercises faster than him, thus maybe will benefit more from adding external weight earlier on, whereas someone heavier can achieve a greater amount of strength than i can using only bodyweight, as if we both were to do the same bodyweight feats, he would be moving a heavier weight than i would be. which i have admitted in the last page, along with clarifying what i meant with my argument.
No, this is what happened. You said: You essentially said small people should move on to weights quickly, and avoid spending too much time with body weight because the amount of weight they would be moving is limited. Which I disagreed with by saying: I argued that despite what you say about small people's body weight not being enough weight to advance in BW strength training, gymnasts, who are usually smaller than the average person, excel in BW strength. Then you tried to make a funny by insinuating I had made a totally irrelevant post: But what I said was perfectly relevant to what you said: In this post, I am referring to the original question, "are body weight exercises less effective for small people than large people." I am saying that a light and small person can almost always get the same type of intensity of muscular contraction with BW as a big guy. Instead of debating this, you said: Which was not relevant to my disagreement. In fact, I was not necessarily disagreeing with the first paragraph of your original post (which you continually and mistakenly defended), since what I said was only relevant to the second paragraph. Then we began discussing relative strength, and as Coma already said, it's rather hard to define relative strength. There are many, many variables involved. It's a good discussion, but you need to understand, first and foremost, exactly what I was disagreeing with in the first place. I admit that the argument changed directions quite a bit, but my original point remains, as do most of my comments about relative strength. It is still wrong. I am not attacking the way you write, but you said you did not understand what I was trying to say, and then proceeded to write a big block of text with no capitals, which are very helpful in reading a big block text. And? And what you said about a BW SLS being able to transfer into a 2x BW squat is incorrect. And like I already said, this is where you are wrong.Yes, if two superhuman people (one small, one large) were BOTH able to do the HIGHEST progression of BW exercises possible, then yes, the big guy would be stronger. But that is not the case, nor will it very likely ever be. Small and light people like you can use BW exercises for a LONG time before you find a need to switch to weights (likely never). Also, as I already said, this ONLY refers to UPPER BODY. Lower body weighted lifts like the DL, BS, FS, SQ, and O-lifts are great for anybody not going strictly for gymnastics. There are sufficient BW exercise progressions available to small and large people for anyone to be able to spend quite a few years mastering them before having to add a lot of external weight. For example, where a big guy may find it challenging to do 20 lean push ups (push ups with hands positioned near hips), a lighter fellow who may or may not be stronger does not, so he moves to a higher progression like psuedo planche push ups or even full planche push ups. I am not interested in seeing you executed for your misconception about BW training. Let's wrap this up and move on to the real discussion of relative strength if that is what you want to do. Respectfully, Patrick
