And I disagree; but lets see what you have to say.
Gymnastics is the only sport that is inherently contradictory. You have to be incredibly strong, but also flexible. Strength training shortens the muscles that need to be elongated. Muscle is also very heavy, but gymnasts have to be as light as possible. Also, females generally peak before puberty, so you're having to fit in all the training in an incredibly short space of time, especially since you are only eligible for the Olympics at 16. They don't get a chance to rest when they get injured: gymnasts have been known to train and compete on broken arms, legs, even backs.
You'll find gymnasts who went into many other sports, but I've never seen anyone who has gone from another sport to gymnastics.
Taleb's explanation of why strength does not increase linearly with weight is overcomplicated and pointless in equal measure. There is enough data that the fact that it doesn't can be determined experimentally.
Could I teach a weightlifter how to do a handstand at the same time as the splits? It probably depends on the weightlifter. Could you teach a lawyer to play the piano?
I see you don't know very much about gymnastics if you don't think that takes insane strength to do.
I think it's more flexibility and skill. It's basically just a fancy hand stand. She is still balanced so she's not trying to overcome some leverage to maintain that position. It's mainly just being flexible enough to get in that position, balanced and skilled enough not to fall over when doing it, and strong enough to hold a handstand position for that long (which is easier since she weighs 42kg).
Gymnastics is the only sport that is inherently contradictory. You have to be incredibly strong, but also flexible. Strength training shortens the muscles that need to be elongated. Muscle is also very heavy, but gymnasts have to be as light as possible. Also, females generally peak before puberty, so you're having to fit in all the training in an incredibly short space of time, especially since you are only eligible for the Olympics at 16. They don't get a chance to rest when they get injured: gymnasts have been known to train and compete on broken arms, legs, even backs.
You'll find gymnasts who went into many other sports, but I've never seen anyone who has gone from another sport to gymnastics.
So at which part do you answer my questions?
They're light because they are very short and have very little bodyweight. That tends to make bodyweight exercises much easier.
I see you don't know very much about gymnastics if you don't think that takes insane strength to do.
that beatle can lift 1400 times its bodyweight......id still squash it.....strength is how heavy you can lift.....i could do double the pressups when 16 than now....yet im twice as strong now
They're light because they are very short and have very little bodyweight. That tends to make bodyweight exercises much easier.
A gymnast would be able (in the vast majority of cases) to do more pull-ups and press-ups than a weightlifter, so for their body weight they are relatively stronger. But in terms of absolute strength a weightlifter is always going to be stronger. Simple fact of the matter is that they are both very impressive in their own right and you can't really compare them - sort of like comparing a marathon runner to a sprinter and asking which is better.
I think it's more flexibility and skill. It's basically just a fancy hand stand. She is still balanced so she's not trying to overcome some leverage to maintain that position. It's mainly just being flexible enough to get in that position, balanced and skilled enough not to fall over when doing it, and strong enough to hold a handstand position for that long (which is easier since she weighs 42kg).
This. I'm pretty much certain I have the strength to do the fancy handstand thing.
I don't have the skill, balance and flexibility, but since this thread is about strength and not those things, SpamBa's point is a irrelevant.
A gymnast would be able (in the vast majority of cases) to do more pull-ups and press-ups than a weightlifter, so for their body weight they are relatively stronger. But in terms of absolute strength a weightlifter is always going to be stronger. Simple fact of the matter is that they are both very impressive in their own right and you can't really compare them - sort of like comparing a marathon runner to a sprinter and asking which is better.
I don't think it would be so clear if you got a weightlifter of the same weight. (hard to find since gymnasts are more like large insects)
A gymnast would be able (in the vast majority of cases) to do more pull-ups and press-ups than a weightlifter, so for their body weight they are relatively stronger.
A weightligter would have a higher Sinclair than the gymnast, so for their bodyweight the WLer is relatively stronger
i think that if in a fight wieghtlifter vs gymnastics i'd go gymnast he'd go ninja on their ass, while wieght lifter might have trouble getting in a hit
also female gymnasts are way hotter than female wieghtlifters
STATS Name: Lee Priest Location: Newcastle, Australia Born: July 6, 1972 Height: 5'4" Off Season Weight: 270-285 lbs. Competition Weight: 220-230 lbs. Arms: 20 3/4" (in competition, pumped) to 21 3/4" (off-season, pumped)
BMI Result Your BMI is 39.3. This result suggests you are obese, which increases the risk of becoming ill with diseases such as high blood pressure, heart disease and cancer.
Ooh, intersting question It's hand to judge. They are stronger in different places. A gymnast is stronger on the thighs and legs, whereas a weightlifter is stronger on the arms.
Ooh, intersting question It's hand to judge. They are stronger in different places. A gymnast is stronger on the thighs and legs, whereas a weightlifter is stronger on the arms.