Home   |   Contact   |   Help

Get Our Newsletter
Sign up for our free newsletter to get training tips and stay up to date on Catalyst Athletics, and get a FREE issue of the Performance Menu journal.

Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Training > Fitness, Strength & CrossFit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-27-2009, 08:53 PM   #1
Grissim Connery
Senior Member
 
Grissim Connery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 624
Default Crossfit HSPUs - BS?

I thought about posting this up in the CF forum, but i didn't wanna deal with a possible war.

I watched the video a while ago on the CF main site talking about how they're gonna crack down on dip form. now they're gonna make sure that the hip line drops way below the hands, therefore moving the whole center of mass as opposed to just rotating it about the hands for a more pushup-like dip. i like this idea, but this opens up a glaring inconsistancy.

obviously the kipping pullup is one of the more controversial CF moves. I agree behind the physics concepts of the kipping pullup, in that from a work standpoint, it's still the same mass moving the whole distance from arms extended to chin/chest to the bar. therefore the kipping pullup generates more power.

by calling themselves out on the lack of ROM on dips, why not talk about their HSPUs as well? coach sommer spefically refers the press from a handstand to a headstand as a "headstand push up (HeSPU)." this seems absolutely necessary, because the strength requirements between this and an actual parallete HSPU are dramatically different.

now it would be hard as hell to pull off strict parallete HSPUs in a metcon, but these can easily be kipped as well. there's plenty of videos on the crossfit site of people kipping their headstand pushups. therefore shouldn't the norm either be requiring real HSPU's for the sake of moving the mass through the total range of motion, or just flat out calling them what they are, headstand pushups?

i understand the advantage of HeSPU in that only a wall is needed, but PVC paralletes are cheap, and with so much time spent on learning the OL, i think all serious CFers can develop a kipping parallete HSPU.
Grissim Connery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2009, 04:20 AM   #2
Chris Forbis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 836
Default

I have personally noticed a HUGE difference between HSPU with the hands flat on a surface to HSPU from parallelettes. This is not even addressing the ROM issue.

When your hands are flat on the floor, it is easy to splay your elbows out to the side. From an elevated surface, I have done an (ugly) full ROM HSPU in this manner. When you move over to paralleletes, your forearms stay in a parallel line with the parallelettes, no elbow splaying. Which I find makes it ridiculously more difficult. It feels a lot more like a press when done in this manner.

My two cents.
Chris Forbis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2009, 07:08 AM   #3
Garrett Smith
Senior Member
 
Garrett Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grissim Connery View Post
I thought about posting this up in the CF forum, but i didn't wanna deal with a possible war.
So you're familiar with character assassination when questioning sport exercise form, eh?

Quote:
I watched the video a while ago on the CF main site talking about how they're gonna crack down on dip form. now they're gonna make sure that the hip line drops way below the hands, therefore moving the whole center of mass as opposed to just rotating it about the hands for a more pushup-like dip. i like this idea, but this opens up a glaring inconsistancy.
The point I took from that video was mainly one of the "true" and deeper dip will translate better to a muscle-up. The new "standard" (it seemed more of a training suggestion to me) would seem difficult to enforce, as it entails the hip moving downward to some very arbitrary point in space.

Quote:
obviously the kipping pullup is one of the more controversial CF moves. I agree behind the physics concepts of the kipping pullup, in that from a work standpoint, it's still the same mass moving the whole distance from arms extended to chin/chest to the bar. therefore the kipping pullup generates more power.
Sure. Done.

Quote:
by calling themselves out on the lack of ROM on dips, why not talk about their HSPUs as well? coach sommer spefically refers the press from a handstand to a headstand as a "headstand push up (HeSPU)." this seems absolutely necessary, because the strength requirements between this and an actual parallete HSPU are dramatically different.
A true HSPU on parallettes (even using the wall) implies that the person in question has *at least* a bodyweight standing press. If you look at the CF Games entrant stats for the men, very few actually had a BW standing press...and that's only for a single rep. This level of strength you are referring to is simply not there nor are many CFers trying to develop it through necessary specialization, IMO.

Quote:
now it would be hard as hell to pull off strict parallete HSPUs in a metcon, but these can easily be kipped as well. there's plenty of videos on the crossfit site of people kipping their headstand pushups. therefore shouldn't the norm either be requiring real HSPU's for the sake of moving the mass through the total range of motion, or just flat out calling them what they are, headstand pushups?
Kipping HSPUs on non-fixed parallettes (what is cheap to make and that most people have) would be a quick way to head/neck/brain damage when a parallette slides out under a "kip". Heck, the CF injury message board had a guy who slipped off the bar doing kipping pullups!

I agree that they should be called headstand pushups. This is one exercise where CF's stated goal of always extending the ROM of an exercise to its full capacity is ignored. This is most plainly a strength issue--stronger men would have a tough time reaching it without some specialization, and it would be the rare freakish woman who ever got one.

Quote:
i understand the advantage of HeSPU in that only a wall is needed, but PVC paralletes are cheap, and with so much time spent on learning the OL, i think all serious CFers can develop a kipping parallete HSPU.
See above. Regarding OL, did you watch the "snatch" video from the Games? Regarding parallette HSPUs to less than full depth, there is video of that from the Games as well, that part destroyed many of the women, and it only extended the ROM from a floor HeSPU by a couple of inches...
__________________
Garrett Smith NMD CSCS BS, aka "Dr. G"
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Blood, Saliva, and Stool Testing
My radio show - The Path to Strength and Health
Garrett Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2009, 07:35 AM   #4
Steven Low
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,091
Default

Of course they're junk...

CF has moved more towards barbell work and away from any gymnastics roots it had. They only "gymnastics" things is has are bastardized forms of pushups, pullups, rings dips, muscle ups, and handstand pushups.

Personally, I wouldn't even count pushups,pullups and dips either -- they should be components of any good program regardless of whether it's "gymnastics" or not.

There's nothing more to say really. Unless your affiliate has any emphasis on learning advanced rings strength or proper non-kipping muscle ups and proper HSPUs with parallels, full depth, and proper form. It's just not worth it to says you do any sort of gymnastics.

Anyone who has actually trained any of these moves seriously knows the amount of strength and body awareness they confer which would be insanely beneficial to anyone really.
__________________
Posts NOT intended as professional medical, training or nutrition advice.
Site // Bodyweight Strength Training Article // Overcoming Gravity Bodyweight Book

Last edited by Steven Low : 10-28-2009 at 07:49 AM.
Steven Low is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2009, 10:19 AM   #5
Alex Bond
Member
 
Alex Bond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 130
Default

I think that part of that is forced by the WODs increasing the reps on HeSPUs. I don't check the main page very often (usually just to look for videos of poor form to giggle at), but I had a couple guys at my last gym who did the main page WOD, and we'd chat about what we were up to that day since they were enlightened compared to most of the clientele there. It seems like it used to be, you do 4 HeSPUs at a time as a part of a 5 rounder or something. There you can actually work to try and get your form decent. Now, they have WODs that program as many as 21 HeSPUs in a row. How is anyone going to keep decent form for 21 in a row? It demands bad form. That just doesn't make sense to me.
__________________
Training Log
Alex Bond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2009, 03:53 PM   #6
Grissim Connery
Senior Member
 
Grissim Connery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 624
Default

after reading the replies and thinking about the safety issues, what about chest roll pushups to handstand? i've been working on these for a while, mainly because i just think they're fun (and i'd like to pull off the worm at the next 80's party). i find them quite safe, and technically speaking, you can bail out of them better than wall HeSPUs since you can roll forward.

they're not as hard as 90 degree pushups. in metcons, people are gonna have crazy arched backs during inverted type presses anyways, so why not use this form which kinda necessitates intense arching for at least a portion of the motion?

i just watched some of the CF games 2009 snatch vids. some of it was kinda ugly, but i hate saying that when my snatch isn't great (i just got done with shoulder rehab, and although most tough shoulder things like muscle ups are coming back, i don't wanna touch snatching for a while).

why have barbells become such the focus now? is it a safety concept, or is there some political reason? i remember seeing a video a while back of glassman saying that the most under-utilized tool in CF was dumbells. he talked a bit about kettlebells and pavel, and he seemed to have a stigma in that direction. wasn't glassman a gymnast originally? what about some other underutilized tools like rope climbing? isn't that a little more of his background?
Grissim Connery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2009, 08:08 PM   #7
Steven Low
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,091
Default

Grissim:

I think very few people have the flexibility and stablization ability to do hollowback press on the floor.

Beats me why they switch towards mostly barbells.
__________________
Posts NOT intended as professional medical, training or nutrition advice.
Site // Bodyweight Strength Training Article // Overcoming Gravity Bodyweight Book
Steven Low is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2009, 10:10 PM   #8
Gavin Harrison
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 263
Default

My guess about cf's movement towards mostly barbells is that they're almost infinitely scalable. It's easier to say, "add 5 pounds" to a barbell movement without impeding the speed of execution of the entire workout (aside from the extra power output required), than it is to add an extra rep to something, or weight to a non-barbell movement.

Calisthenics/Gymnastics kind of naturally scale, but to your body size, not your strength size..

This is all just my own theory. We could also assume that if people knew that they could get a good level of strength and conditioning without much equipment at all, that there would be not many people with gym memberships, much less to gyms sporting tons of machines and bars and dumbbells and stuff. The part that makes this harder, is people don't have enough imagination with calisthenics, and it's easier to track progress with a bench press than progression towards a one armed pushup, or a loaded back squat than a progression towards a full one legged squat.
Gavin Harrison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2009, 05:42 AM   #9
Garrett Smith
Senior Member
 
Garrett Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,368
Default

As with almost anything, as an idea/movement gets more popular, it tends to get easier (to relate to the masses, thus the scalability of the barbell and less gymnastics) and less like its original incarnation.

Questioning inconsistencies between Glassman's manifestos and the actual implementation of the WODs, and the community's defensive (then attacking) reaction is one major reason I wouldn't stick around there.

One of the best things that CF introduced me to was the idea of gymnastics in my programming. Then I had to realize, much like OL in CF programming, that I wouldn't improve much doing it their way...I needed specialization.

I'm personally not interested in figuring out ways to do 21 HeSPUs faster and faster, with "slop". I want one REALLY GOOD free HSPU on parallettes...a feat that Glassman himself has stated may translate to a 1.5xBW standing press...both are impressive feats. Neither is likely to be reached on WOD programming.
__________________
Garrett Smith NMD CSCS BS, aka "Dr. G"
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Blood, Saliva, and Stool Testing
My radio show - The Path to Strength and Health
Garrett Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 04:54 PM   #10
Blair Lowe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 593
Default

Garrett, I believe Glassman said 10 or 15 on parallettes might equal to a 1.5xBW OHP. 1, will not.

I am nearing an OHP but I haven't tried a HSPU on parallettes on the wall in awhile. The last few times I was too tired to do a free HSPU on the floor, I was able to do about 5 in a row from a headstand to handstand.

I'll try tonight after WU.

Chest roll to HS is much easier if you can do big superman rocks. If you can't, it requires a lot more strength.

Barbells are stupid easy compared to gymnastics. WL is not, but I'm talking about just general BB work. Squat isn't as easy as dead or press.

Garrett, there was an old thread at CF and was pretty much joint concluded that a HSPU on parallettes is probably only 80-90% of your BW to press if done on wall only for balance. Free, perhaps 90%+.

In a HSPU, free or on parallettes you can use the stretch reflex unless you get stuck at the bottom.

Coach Sommer shows both HeSPU with the elbows splaying out and the elbows in at various progressions of GB. I think elbows out is more towards the beginning progression spectrum, but dunno.

Quote:
One of the best things that CF introduced me to was the idea of gymnastics in my programming. Then I had to realize, much like OL in CF programming, that I wouldn't improve much doing it their way...I needed specialization.
Agreed.
Blair Lowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Subscribe to our Newsletter


Receive emails with training tips, news updates, events info, sale notifications and more.
ASK GREG

Submit your question to be answered by Greg Everett in the Performance Menu or on the website

Submit Your Question
WEIGHTLIFTING TEAM

Catalyst Athletics is a USA Weightlifting team of competitive Olympic-style weightlifters with multiple national team medals.

Read More
Olympic Weightlifting Book
Catalyst Athletics
Contact Us
About
Help
Newsletter
Products & Services
Gym
Store
Seminars
Weightlifting Team
Performance Menu
Magazine Home
Subscriber Login
Issues
Articles
Workouts
About the Program
Workout Archives
Exercise Demos
Text Only
Instructional Content
Exercise Demos
Video Gallery
Free Articles
Free Recipes
Resources
Recommended Books & DVDs
Olympic Weightlifting Guide
Discussion Forum
Weight Conversion Calculator