Welcome back.

Thanks, you big gay.

Congratulations, Ogged. That's wonderful.

Not sure if this is too personal but how does it feel putting your groove out there for the world to see when you're swimming? Does that still feel weird or does it feel like part of you now?

Congratulations -- I've always felt some envy for people who could train their body that way, but I'm happy for you as well as envious.

Great post, ogged, and similarly great news.

I think you're absolutely right that the thing you want to do is the thing you have discipline for, but it's sometimes not so easy to pin down what that thing is. It's often not a category, but a feeling.

I realized something like what you said (though less eloquently put) after my experience working at a law firm last summer. At the end of the summer, I didn't get a job offer, because I didn't have the right discipline or responsibility. The work I did, when I did it, was good, but I was constantly having to be harrassed by supervisors, people would "check in" on my progress, I would stop doing work for days (and read Unfogged, natch). That employer would probably describe me as irresponsible and uncommunicative. But I've worked now for two organizations that do prison and criminal justice reform work, and I think both of my supervisors would describe me as dedicated, bright, insightful, and determined. It's like night and day.

So I realized that I do good work when I feel like I'm fighting systematic injustice, and mediocre work when I'm not. I can't work just for the sake of working, for pay (I can, but I don't do it well), or for recognition. So, as much as I know what I have discipline for, it's been hard to nail it down exactly, and similarly hard to actually do it.

I suppose I should be bummed that I missed my calling, and figured it out "too late." ... there are still a million ways to make it part of my life.

This is going to sound soo earnest, but you didn't miss your (a) calling. It is part of your life. Anyway there are a great variety of vocations. Ask Anatole France's juggler.

Congratulations on the swimming. When can we see the movie? I see Burt Lancaster playing Ogged.

I was thinking Tom Cruise.

Don't you still have a future at Chippendales? Sure, you've lost a step, but Chippendales isn't about performance.

Or rather, it's about nothing but a performance.... erm....

Could Lobofilho come by and fix the semantics for me here?

how does it feel putting your groove out there for the world to see when you're swimming?

You know, I hardly even thought about it--I suppose I've gotten used to it, and it doesn't look so noticeable anyway.

it doesn't look so noticeable

This is what -gg-d tells himself... I'm surprised at Becks' breach of protocol.

lovely post

When are you going to be prepped to race?

Didn't someone predict a couple days ago that Ogged would soon say how awesome a swimmer he is? (As part of completing some trifecta of self promotion)
Not that he isn't, of course.

Apparently the earnestness comes back with health. I'm pleased for you.

Do you know what it is about athletic activity that makes it so important to you? I often wonder if, for those so inclined, it's the straightforward payoff: you do your work, and you get better, usually in measurable ways, and often in much smaller increments than you see in other fields. Or is it the movement, and the joy in the physical?

When are you going to be prepped to race?

Now that I have a gut and can barely do a pull-up, he wants to race. I'll be ready in one year, slol.

13: Yeah, me. It was a comment made on his "I'm handsome" post. Now you've made me feel mildly guilty about that; thanks, SP.

Don't worry, ogged! I have never in my life, not even when I was a scrawny, strong eight year-old, been able to do a pull-up.

[googly eyes] Jooooiin uussssss! [/googly eyes]

Now that I have a gut and can barely do a pull-up
It wouldn't be funny if it were fair.

Congrats on getting back in the water, Ogged.

Do the sharks circle when you swim?

17: Me neither! And I suspect that even after many years of training, I still don't think I could do one.

It struck me when I was watching the Bond movie last weekend, and admiring how Daniel Craig was so hot and muscular and badass. For like a day, I wanted to be a dude. It's pretty easy for most of y'all to get buff-ish. For me, I feel like I could go to the gym every day for three years and I'd just still be kinda soft-ish.

Do you know what it is about athletic activity that makes it so important to you?

I'm not sure what makes it important to me: probably being encouraged in the wrong ways when I was a kid, but I know why I like it: it's like a puzzle that feels great to solve. I think this is most obvious with people who get addicted to golf: they hit the ball perfectly once, and then they're always chasing that feeling of the solid thwack. But every sport has an element of that--the ball rolls off your fingers just right, or that stroke was perfect from start to finish. And, of course, there's the part that a lot of people associate with the joy of dancing, which is feeling your body move with some kind of rhythm.

3: The nice thing about scars is that one can always make up a great story about how one got them. 'Oh, that, it's nothing, just an injury I got when pulling a small child out of danger in New Orleans during the flood a couple of years ago. I'd pretty much forgotten about it.' [Diffidence is always good.]

A friend of mine in college, who had a short, jagged scar on his cheek left over from some childhood accident used to claim it was a duelling scar, suffered when he defended the honour of a lady. ]Somehow, no one found this odd, even tho' duelling hadn't been in fashion for, oh, 150 years or so.] It did give him scads of romantic-hero points.

I'll be ready in one year, slol.

We are so holding you to that. You guys should race one year hence and blog it. Just think of all of the smack-talking opportunities until then!

It's pretty easy for most of y'all to get buff-ish

I would love to see the data backing up this assertion.

I've never been able to do a pull-up, either. I was so pissed -- the Presidential Physical Fitness test used to have guys do pull-ups and girls do this arm hang thing, which I also couldn't do. I finally practiced until I could do the arm hang thing and that year they changed the rules so that girls had to do pull-ups, too. Then I was like "screw this".

I have the sort of body that makes it rather easy for me to get buff-ish, but this has never translated into the ability to do pull-ups.

I've loved cycling in just this way since I was a kid; it gives me a kind of pure happiness. And many other physical and psychic benefits.

I know why I like it: it's like a puzzle that feels great to solve. I think this is most obvious with people who get addicted to golf: they hit the ball perfectly once, and then they're always chasing that feeling of the solid thwack.

I can understand that, but I can't quite sort out why it's true of athletics in a way that it doesn't seem to be of other areas. Or, rather, it does seem to be true in other areas, but either the occurrences don't happen as frequently or there is some extra thing that athletics offers to add motivation or payoff or something.

Pull-ups were important in the militaristic (Boy Scouts and Civil Air Patrol, etc.) society I grew up in. I've always been too heavy to be able to do lots; about fifteen is the most I ever did. My basic-training bunkmate, a dweeby, weedish guy weighing about 120, was a virtual Gibbon compared with me. I could literally throw him in the air.

The hard thing about pull-ups is how to work up to them. That hanging thing girls used to be put to, that Becks mentioned, is a start. Doing negative work helps, that is, stepping up using a chair or ladder and continuing to go down, controlling your descent, even after you can no longer pull up, or even if you can't do one.

I think it is true of other areas. Music is like that. Practicing a musical instrument is pretty much exactly the same. There's a direct pay-off between effort and results and the same attention to physical movement.

I can spend months or even years working on one particular part of my guitar playing technique just to make it that little bit better.* I've spent the last year deliberately rebuilding my picking technique, for example, much like a golfer or tennis player would rebuild their swing.

I *do* get something similar from savate -- nailing a kick with properly elegant movements, or spotting what someone is about to do by reading their movements and then counter-attacking -- and those athletic feelings of accomplishment are great, but, much of the same thing -- the pleasure of a certain kind of mindless focus on the physical -- can be had from music.

* Not that I'm a brilliant player, I might add.

the thing you want to do is the thing you have discipline for

That's a depressing thought.

Some gyms (mine being one) have a machine for pull-ups that provides an adjustable amount of aid for people working their way up to doing pull-ups or dips. You kneel on a platform that is attached to an adjustable counterweight, which can be adjusted from offsetting up to 200 pounds on ours (you know, if you feel like doing no work at all). I found this to be really helpful with dips, which always make my elbows feel like they are about to explode into a million pieces.

ttaM: this is what I was talking about being envious of, above. I am a fairly good guitarist and a fairly good violinist and an ok singer, and I get a lot of sensual enjoyment out of playing my instruments and/or singing. But I can't seem to get any quantifiable improvement out of practicing. Of course I get better over time but there doesn't seem to be any method to it -- I'll be in a rut for a long period and then get a lot better quickly, and I may not even be practicing much in the period when I get better quickly.

I think we are all a lot like that with getting in a rut and then suddenly leaping forward (or even getting worse). I think quite heavily about what I am doing -- in terms of technique -- so there's something things I am good at. But I am still lazy. So, I've been playing for 20 years, and know people in their teens who can play rings round me.

However, I do set fairly small goals to work towards. So, this past year it's been getting my picking technique sorted, and working on my jazz playing* -- which remains woefully bad, but it is much better than a year ago.

* Very loose jamming clip on some gypsy/swing style stuff here - http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/lesyeuxnoirs.m4v [I am on the left]...

For like a day, I wanted to be a dude. It's pretty easy for most of y'all to get buff-ish.

?

I'm troubled by the fact that I still can't decide whether I did the right thing in leaving the life of the mind behind by dropping out of grad school.

About half the time I think I really would have been happy at some small college somewhere, teaching philosophy, and about half the time I shudder in horror at what might have been.

"I've played or worked out with enough professional athletes to know that I'm not in their class"

Yeah, but you know what's cool?

You have played and worked out with professional athletes.

If you're like me, that mere fact is enough to give you a sense of pride and contentment. (about that part of your life--maybe not so much for others).

Or rather--if you are about sports the way I am about some intellectual stuff (since I have never been good enough to play or work out with pro athletes, and I'm not sure I would have gotten a thrill from it if I had).

Here's what I have in mind: I have been lucky to spend a lot of my career around the smartest people in my discipline. Now, I am not one of those. Compared to them, I'm the talented amateur, or minor leaguer.

But I tell you--just to be able to work with them has been a thrill for me. I remember one particular faculty meeting where I got on a riff and some other people chipped in, probably took it further than I could have by myself, and I thought to myself: "this is what it would feel like if I could have sat in on a number with Dizzy and Bird. This is what it would feel like if I could have played a quarter with Jordan and Pippen. Of course I'm not in their league--but man, it is *cool* to sit in with them."

The realization that you're not in that league is relatively painless after a while--I listen to Yo Yo Ma and I don't think, "damn him for playing the cello better than I can," I just bless the world for having produced somebody like him.

So anyway--I just want to say: I admire the fact that you have even worked up to a place where you can play with the pros. That's cool in itself. Not that many people can say that. And if your experience was like mine, it was a very rewarding experience for you in and of itself.

"a machine for pull-ups that provides an adjustable amount of aid for people working their way up to doing pull-ups or dips. You kneel on a platform that is attached to an adjustable counterweight"

yeah, I remember my brother quipping that this is the only piece of equipment where he can like *max out* the weights on the machine, dude!
Pile it on, I can do it!

the thing you want to do is the thing you have discipline for

I incorporate by reference my previous quotation from Uexküll.

Zadfrack, what do you do now, if you can say?

I love that thing. I'm ten pounds away from being able to do a chin up (or at least I was a couple of weeks ago, in which I haven't worked out. I probably couldn't lift a sandwich by now).

A lot of it depends on body structure, not just across genders. Some of this stuff is a lot easier when you are younger. When I was about 14 I'd reguarly do a couple hundred pull ups two or three times a week (not in one position, so not one continuous count). I can't even imagine how I would go about getting into the sort of shape to do that today, or if it's even possible.

Right, it's easier for smaller, leaner people. The heavily built (these days, me!) are always going to have a hard time.

Just for the record, and I don't want this to come across as mean or insensitive in any way, but a physically fit adult woman ought to be able to do bodyweight pull-ups for reps. (Men too, obviously, but I don't think anyone was questioning that.) If you've been working out regularly and can't, you're doing something wrong.

43 You can certainly be quite fit and not be able to do pull-ups, particularly not many. It is a relatively narrow upper body strength move, and a lot of people (especially women) just don't have the arm & shoulder development to do it. I do know a couple of very fit women who probably can't do 5, even if they might manage 1 (I'm not sure). Sure, you can argue they have underdeveloped shoulders relative to other muscle groups. On the other hand they could run a marathon distance on a minutes notice so it would be a bit crazy to say they are not physically fit. Physically fit really isn't equivalent to going to the gym, in either direction.

I suppose I should be bummed that I missed my calling

I oscillate (in about a 1 to 10 duty cycle) between being depressed over the waste of potential and being happy I didn't end dead early on. No one gets out alive so it's better to enjoy this amusement park ride while the ticket's valid.

I suppose I should be bummed that I missed my calling

I've explained this to you already, Ogged.

44- A pull-up is a very functional movement, one that the human body as evolved is or ought to be able to do. It's not a "narrow" upper body strength move at all -- it uses some of the largest muscle groups in the body (in the back). So, yes, I would say that someone who can't do a single pull-up but "otherwise" appears fit has a serious imbalance somewhere. (Though not necessarily in the shoulders. When was the last time your shoulders got sore doing pullups?)

Would you say the same thing about someone who couldn't do a single sit-up? (Well, she can run a marathon, so everything's okay...) Of course being physically fit isn't "equivalent to going to the gym", but it's not just cardiovascular fitness either.

PS: if you friend can can crank out 5, none of this applies to her.

And of course I don't deny that "a lot of people (especially women) just don't have the arm & shoulder development to do it". A lot of people aren't fit at all. That's a problem, is all I'm saying.

47: I was being rushed and sloppy there, mea culpa. Of course if your back or core is in bad shape, you won't be able to do it. On the other hand, it is *dependent* on a narrow set of upper body strength; If you don't have enough strength in your biceps & shoulders, you can't do them either (shoulders more important for some variants than others). People who have good core conditioning but underdeveloped arm strength can't do them, but I don't know that it's fair to assume they are in bad condition, quite. What I was trying to say is that I know several people who fall into or near this category, at a guess.

People who are active and pretty fit don't necessarily exercise uniformly enough. I'm not saying this a good thing, just that there are particular exercises they are not going to be good at, while still being far, far more fit than the overwhelming majority of the population.

49: oh, and plenty of people who can do 5 pull ups aren't very fit, either. So I just don't think it's a very good proxy.

Just for the record, and I don't want this to come across as mean or insensitive in any way, but a physically fit adult woman ought to be able to do bodyweight pull-ups for reps.

That's just flat-out incorrect. Women's bodyweight is distributed differently than men. Many, if not most, men, untrained, can manage a pull up. An untrained adult woman cannot. A trained, fit woman really has to work at it, because while you're correct that it just isn't shoulder and arm muscles, it's harder for women to develop those muscles than men (and women tend to develop leg strength more easily.) Different bone structure, different center of gravity, etc.

Your point about ab muscles doesn't apply as there isn't the same structural difference.

It's possible to do a pull-up, but for women, it seems to be a skill that has to be learned, rather than a general side effect of being in shape. I was close this summer because I was sidelined by back spasms, but I had to work on it like I'd work on turnout in ballet or mohawks in skating or learning to hit a baseball. It's not just something that happened by working out. I was a collegiate athlete, in really great shape, and pullups just didn't happen.

35: What's the confusion? It's easy for boys to be buff. I want to be buff. Therefore, I want to be a boy. Kinda.

I think Brock is wrong, unless we're talking about very different definitions of "physically fit." Either way, I'm not physically fit by my or his definition, so it doesn't really matter that I can't do a pullup.

And I was hoping Cala would show up and debunk this, 'cause I know she's like, badass and stuff.

Different bone structure, different center of gravity, etc.

Not to mention the math involved.

54: I thought about going that way, Apo, but it seemed too easy.

The point about collegiate athletes is a good one. I bet if you took a college women's soccer team, for example, many of them wouldn't be able to do pullups for reps. Are you asserting that those women aren't physically fit?

I'm very dedicated to the path of least resistance.

It's easy for boys to be buff

This statement seems wrong to me.

Some backup. From the article:

Pullups are also darn hard for the average woman to do. Most untrained females who are older than 10 and heavier than 50 lbs can't do them. The good news, though, is that most trained women CAN do them. It just takes practice, patience, and time. So, if you've always wanted to do a pullup, or you have to do a few to pass a military or police fitness test, this article is for you!

So, they can be done. But they're not as easy for women as they are for men, and it's a bad proxy as a result. Rather like the ability to do a split would be for a man. I'm in better shape than my fiancé, but he can do a pushup with me sitting on his back, and can do pull-ups on the doorframe.

It's easy for boys to be buff.

?

Your point about ab muscles doesn't apply as there isn't the same structural difference.

I think you're missing my point. I understand that men naturally tend to have greater upper body strength development. A fit male ought to be able to do plenty more pullups than a fit female (and likely be lifting more weight on each one, besides). But a women ought to be able to do *a few*. If she can't, she's not working out correctly, and (IMO) not in very good shape, or at least not well-balanced good shape. I don't deny that she can maybe run marathons and perhaps she can even squat more weight than I can. But she's got a serious imbalance.

Maybe I should have said it that way, maybe it would be less controversial: if you can't do a single bodyweight pullup, you're either not in good shape or you've got a serious imbalance somewhere. That's all I really meant.

A serious imbalance that you ought to try and remedy.

If you were ought on the plains fighting mammoths all day like your neaderthal foremothers, you'd be able to do pullups without special training. That's all I'm saying.

I don't disagree with anything in 59 and, again, certainly wasn't saying they should be as easy for a woman as for a man.

Working out is hard. It takes a lot of time and is painful.

A serious imbalance that you ought to try and remedy.

It's not a serious imbalance, though! That's entirely my point. It's such a skill for a woman that it's rather like me saying that while ogged is an admirable swimmer, he can't do a Russian split, which shows he has an imbalance.

For a guy it would be, as pretty much any guy in reasonable shape can pop off a few. For a woman, it's not a sign of imbalance. It may be something she wants to work on, and it is something she can improve, but it's not a sign of overtraining in other area or undertraining or risk of injury.

I just had to wander around the house looking for someplace to do a pullup (not enough grip on a doorframe) - turns out I can. But I never could in HS, when I was skinny and semi-athletic - but I'll admit, never strong. But even as I grew up and grew stronger, I doubt I've ever been able to do them for reps - even as I've played rugby, poured concrete, biked for distance, etc. (as in, proxies for actual, practical strength/fitness).

That said, I actually think m. leblanc is basically right. Especially since "being buff" doesn't necessarily mean "being strong" or in great shape - a little meat on the shoulders and a little ab definition is enough to appear buff, regardless of overall strength. Controlling for body type (obviously), it's much easier for men/boys to look buff - inherently lower %body fat, plus no subcutaneous layer of fat, which is simply a normal part of the female anatomy (per AP bio, at least). If the skin lays on top of muscle, any improvement to that muscle will show - less so under a blanket of fat (even a thin one).

You know, I just came *this* close to using an analogy....

61: Seriously, Brock, do you know many fit women by your standard? I've never been in particularly good shape, but I've been friends with a fair number of women athletes, and being able to do a pullup is much more the exception than the rule even among competitive athletes. Making the line for 'fit' at 'can do a pullup' for women seems as if an equivalent would exclude most men not in the 'really serious competitive athelete' class.

Again, Cala, would you say the same thing about a person (man or woman) who couldn't do a single sit up? If they could run marathons and do a Russian split and, hell, even do 25 pullups? Would you still not think there was something wrong and out of balance?

It strikes me that perhaps we're not really disagreeing at all, I may just have a higher standard for what it means to be "physically fit". Not only do I not think most people are unfit, I think a lot of people are pathologically so.

But if your claim is instead that a woman needs to be something of an elite athlete to do a pullup, I don't know what to say except that I'm quite convinced you're wrong.

You know, I just came *this* close to using an analogy....

Was it to dolphins? They have subcutaneous layer of fat and are totally buff (though not ripped).

But doing a situp is also way, way easier than doing a pullup. (And, of course, dolphins can't do situps or pullups, which is totally not beside the point, why do you ask?)

But if your claim is instead that a woman needs to be something of an elite athlete to do a pullup, I don't know what to say except that I'm quite convinced you're wrong.

This isn't exactly the claim -- I'm pretty close to being able to do a pullup, and I'm certainly not an elite athlete, I've just been lifting weights a lot over the last year, and I get strong fairly easily. The claim is that the upper body strength required to do a pullup is very uncommon among women, even among women who do many other things (such as, for example, play competitive sports at a fairly high level) that would otherwise define fitness.

Again, do you know many women who do pullups as part of their exercise routine?

On O's original post, I can't agree enough about the (presumed) satisfaction of some sort of professional level of athletic achievement. I was never good enough at any sport to achieve even small-scale success (I'm like, the 4th-best player on a shitty grad school softball team), but the thought of it is so intense....

There's a line in Ken Burns' Baseball from a minor leaguer that makes me absolutely weep: "Maybe I'll never make it to the Show, but my kids'll be able to say, 'yeah, my dad played some ball - got paid for it, too.' " Something about that idea, that you just need a touch of that achievement, simply gets me.

Look, Brock, the physical differences don't apply to abs. Bad analogy. Put it down and back away.

What you're saying, if we're dipping into analogy land, is like saying "An average fit male has a body fat percentage of 15%. The average fit female has a body fat percentage of 20%. Therefore, all fit women are really obese, and it's a sign that they're not really working out hard enough."

The ability to do a pull-up is not a proxy for general fitness for women like it is for men. It isn't a sign of a muscle imbalance, as imbalance implies a deficiency and a higher risk of injury. It is a sign instead that women have breasts, hips, and carry their weight lower in their bodies (meaning it's along for the ride as dead weight, not helping to lift.)

But if your claim is instead that a woman needs to be something of an elite athlete to do a pullup, I don't know what to say except that I'm quite convinced you're wrong.

She need not be an elite athlete, but she does have to be working on pullups as though she is. It's not going to be the sort of thing that comes with general fitness and strength training. It's closer to a sport-specific skill.

Nevermind, okay I retract everything. I don't want to fight about this. I guess the women I work out with are just freaks of nature. (That would explain their hairy testicles.) I've never been a women, after all, so who am I to talk.

I'll revise and say (though I'm not convinced, but I don't want to argue) that a woman who can do a pullup is roughly equivalent to a man who can do a muscle-up. Almost all can, with work and training, but few are going to be able to do it right out of the gate, even if they're quite strong. But it's not a bad goal to shoot for, and should be achievable without too much pain or tears.

The most important things to work on are your weaknesses. (Probably good advice generally, but I'm talking about fitness.)

Turns out it's not analogies that get us off-topic. It's fitness regimens.

I'd say dolphins are sleek, maybe even hgard-bodied, but I"m not sure if they're "buff" - I think of that as being kind of bulging. Like, snakes are all-muscle, but they're not "buff."

What's that? No, it's on-topic! Dolphins, like ogged, swim.

Nevermind, okay I retract everything. I don't want to fight about this. I guess the women I work out with are just freaks of nature.

I'm in a bad mood about other stuff, but this is really kind of shitty, Brock. If you work out with a bunch of women who do pullups as part of their exercise routines, that's great. Say so. That's why I asked. I'm surprised, but I'm not doubting you or going to say anything bad about them, I'd like to be able to do pullups myself and I'm working on it.

I still think they almost certainly had to put an awful lot of focused effort into it, and that it's a bad proxy for general fitness, but that's it.

Snakes are so buff.

Sausagely says that he can whip any woman anywhere.

All I'm saying it's a bad proxy for overall fitness in women. Not that it's impossible, or that you have to be a freak of nature to do it, but that you can be in quite good shape, balanced, and not have that ability without specifically training for it. And it doesn't imply that you're out of shape.

I can almost do a pullup. But if I were putting that amount of effort in on any other part of my body, I'd be seeing phenomenal gains. It's a lot harder for someone with my body shape (generally muscular, but skewed lower half) to learn to do a pullup, whereas if I glance furtively at the squat cage, my quads put on six pounds of muscle in anticipation.

No one's asking about his sexual preference.

He specifically mentioned you, LB.

Brock, I'm with Cala here. When I was young and actually mad about not being able to do pull-ups, here were some of my cross-training activities: ballet, soccer, whaleboat-rowing, rope-climbing, tumbling, and every so often for fun, running the Marine obstacle-course. I pretty much kicked ass at all of these, so developing the specific muscle-sets that make pull-ups possible seemed a little pointless.

I think of that as being kind of bulging.

Interesting, that's not a crucial feature for my own semantics of buff. For me it's more centered on tautness, I think.

And muscularity, arranged as best befits the wearer.

LB, I certainly wasn't trying to be shitty, and I apologize if I came across that way. What I was saying is that maybe I was honestly underestimating how difficult it is for a woman to do pullups. That's why I was retracting my statement. Like I said, I've never been a woman, so maybe I misjudged this. I know plenty of women who can do a few pullups, and I certainly do think it's something most women can do if they work at it, or even work those muscle groups a lot (it is still a test of strength, not skill, so I don't think you necessarily need to practice *pullups*, just get those muscles stronger). But my original statement may have been just wrong.

These women seem to do them okay. These women are doing muscle ups better than I can.

Brock, my experience is that unlike squats or situps on a balance ball or on an incline board, where you just do it and the improvement comes relatively quickly, pull-ups are a lot closer to a skill. It's not that it doesn't involve working muscle groups, it's that unlike other areas of working out, which generally track overall fitness, it seems to operate independently of that. To me it seems more like learning to swim; not independent of fitness, but not a good proxy, either.

82- you could climb ropes but couldn't do a pull up??? How is that? I mean, one is basically just like the other, only harder. Unless women really are anatomically different in some way I don't at all understand.

Golly, those video clips are very impressive, and no hard feelings.

I know plenty of women who can do a few pullups, and I certainly do think it's something most women can do if they work at it, or even work those muscle groups a lot (it is still a test of strength, not skill, so I don't think you necessarily need to practice *pullups*, just get those muscles stronger).

This is almost certainly true, of course. I've just been arguing about whether 'something that's within most people's capacity, if they train hard' is necessarily going to be the same thing as 'something that defines whether or not you're generally fit'. I'd say pullups for women is the former, but not the latter. But we can certainly disagree about that.

Rope-climbing uses a lot of strength in your legs, unless you are talking about some kind of rope-climbing where you're not allowed to use your legs, which I can't quite picture.

87: Climbing ropes you can use your feet.

89/90- oh, I guess. I've always thought of it as arms only.

Unless you're a super-nimble monkey-boy, using one's feet is actually faster than climbing just with one's arms.

89: yeah, climbing like that is much more like pullups (but still quite different) but the usual way is with legs. We used to do it with legs held at precise 90degrees to body (and spread at 90 too). Hand over hand slowly say 30ft. It's quite an arm & back work out.

1. I can do pullups (not a lot, right now, I'd guess), but I couldn't climb a rope to save my life.

2. This thread is beyond insane.

93: was me. (and in that case the point is exercise, not speed, good technique with feet should be faster, I think)

I was in an all-girls Sea Scout crew, and we'd compete against macho all-boys crews, the members of whom clearly believed that their brute arm muscle strength would get them to the top of the tope in good time. We knew we didn't have brute strength arm muscles and so worked like hell on our technique and coordination. It was incredibly satisfying to watch boys freeze up, their arms unable to make another pull-up, their legs dangling uselessly.

Brock, watch that first video again. Those women are buff and strong as hell and you know what? They're still not doing pull-ups. First, in a legit pull-up, you can't use your legs to swing yourself up--doing so makes going up much easier. Second, I didn't see a single chin clear the bar, and that's the hardest part of a pull-up.

soubzriquet, were you in the circus? a gymnast? That sounds incredibly difficult.

96: that makes sense to me. When we were doing it, part of the point was strength exercise but part of it was maintaining form with your legs at the same time. This was for gymnastics though, not racing up & down ropes (we came down slow too ... near the end on your second or third time up it it was *hard* not to give up and drop).

Unless women really are anatomically different in some way I don't at all understand.

Right where you'd expect a penis, there isn't one!

Most of the women here are smart enough to know if they're relatively fit. Given the personality types involved, they're likely to be over-critical and have bias towards underrating their fitness. Someone on the Internets says X is the measure of fitness and...we're nearly 60 comments later? Who cares? Maybe Brock has a higher bar for "physical fitness" than most people, maybe his female friends are absurdly fit, maybe they have suspicious mustaches. Maybe he's just wrong. But he's not well-positioned to measure your fitness, you are--go with the person who's closer.

97: Well, but they're doing lots of them. Those women could probably do pullups with good form. (Although I was kind of thinking the same thing, but wasn't going to say anything considering that I couldn't come close to doing what they're doing.)

98: Yeah, this was gymnastics. I look back on some of the stuff we were doing then and shake my head. Nobody told us they would be stupidly difficult, so we just assumed we could do them when the coach said `do this'. Granted, doing a couple hundred situps or pushups or pullups is a lot easier when you have the mass of a 14 year old... but damn, we were strong for 14 year olds. We used to do things like handstand pushup contests too; like either alone isn't difficult enough.

all a long time ago now...

Much harder than climbing a rope for me was getting over the 6' fence standard in the Marine obstacle course. Eventually, though, I figured out that since I couldn't do a pull-up, the best way to get over was to do a sort of grand jêté and use my hamstrings to pull me up. It sounds a bit nuts, but it worked fairly consistantly.

Like, kick high against the wall, grab the top, and sort of walk over it? Dude.

Those women could probably do pullups with good form.

A couple of them probably could. One of them isn't even close. But the difference between getting your head halfway up the bar and clearing your chin is quite a bit of strength in the shoulders and triceps; it's not trivial.

103.--Yeah, I hear you. My ballet friends and I used to compete to see who could do splits up the most stairs. (Bottom leg on the landing, top leg one or two or maybe even three steps up.) Long time ago now.

In that case, retract what I said about being close to being able to do a pullup. Maybe after another six months or so working on it.

97- ogged, at that gym everyone does pullups that way. They're doing them that way on purpose -- less raw back strength required, but more abdominal and cardiovascular work involved.

I'm quite sure those women could do a few "strict" pullups, though, if they wanted to.

105.--Yeah. Like I said, I was in good shape, but I couldn't do a pull-up to save my life.

Also (and this is the second video, not the first, but...) if you can do muscle ups, you're waaay past pull ups in terms of raw strength.

108: there's a little transition near the end which might be tricky ... basically your biceps run out of motion, and pectorals have to provide stability if I'm visualizing it correctly.

There are different types too. Do you do them with hands facing forward and backward? Hand spacing changes things too, and there are variants like `eagle ups' which are very different exercise.

Ok, but that's not what "pull-up" means to anyone else.

Do you do them with hands facing forward and backward?

At this point, I'm working on what feels easiest -- palms facing me, narrow grip.

107: Oh I hated flexibility work much more than strength work. I could just about manage splits at one point though, which -- given my current lack of flex, seems unreal to me. Watching some 7 year old girl practice between chairs (i.e. well past 180 degrees) always struck me as a bit insane too.

114: yeah, that's the most natural, if by `narrow' you mean roughly shoulder width. If i recall correctly narrow meaning hands close together is a bit more difficult to finish. I really haven't thought about that sort of thing for years though, so i could be talking nonsense.

About shoulder width is right. I've been working out on one of those assisted chinup machines (kneeling on a counterweight) and it hasn't got a bar -- just hand grips. Which makes figuring out when your chin is over the 'bar' tricky.

114: I always run out of bicep strength that way. Arms about 10 degrees outside of vertical and hands facing forward seems easiest. But regardless, it helps much more than one might think to independently work whatever smaller muscles crap out first.

Blah blah exercise blah programming languages blah chinups--

Yo, NASA just discovered evidence of water flowing on Mars within the past seven years.

By the way, watch the second clip in 85 through to the end and you will see a woman who is exhausted. I really think she should have pulled the plug on that last set of cleans. That's a really good way to get injured.

119 -- Yowza!

all this thread is doing now is reminding me how out of shape I am. bastards.

"this is the squirting gun" seems a bit infelicetous.

39: I'm an all-purpose computer geek - Unix admin, DBA, Perl programmer.

Oh, and I completely suck at doing pullups.

What's the difference between a muscle-up and a pull-up?

I had to google for it. A muscle up is a pullup done on gymnastics rings, but at the top of the pullup you swing your arms up and press your body up above the rings (like a dip), so you end up with your arms, holding the rings, straight down by your sides. If you google, you'll probably get a clearer explanation. Or look at the second clip in Brock's 85.

A muscle up is basically a combined pull-up and dip. You start with a pull-up, but pull yourself up over the bar and push up to completion.

The pull-up and the dip are the easy parts -- the transition between the two is the hard part. The guy in the video is making it look easy, but for most people, it's not at all.

126- can be done on a bar (see clip in 127).

I can't get Brock's clips to work, but I found some on youtube. Is the transition a matter of strength, and if so what muscles does it work? The guy in the video I saw (using a bar, not rings) is cheating like mad, using his legs to kick and the momentum from the assisted pull-up to get into a dip position. The other thing I'm not getting about the muscle-up is why I'd want to do these rather than, say, a pullup-dip superset.

Brock's clip also looks like momentum from the pullup is what gets you to the dip position. I would guess that the point is that doing a pullup at a speed that leaves you with upward momentum at the top is really freaking hard.

But if you're doing it with a leg-kick or something other than the lats and arms, isn't this just cheating on the pullup? I've always been told that if you're moving the weight fast enough for momentum to do anything, you need to slow it down, and I'd think this applies to the pullup as well.

OK, think I see the idea there. I think both of the main component actions could probably be duplicated on the assisted chin-up machine (which is a great invention, I think) but maybe not whatever's involved in the transition. My gym doesn't have anything as esoteric as rings: it's a controlled fitness environment.

And speaking of which; what's with the gym porn? Does someone want to see weightlifting injuries on camera?

129- chest/shoulders, mostly. You'd do these instead of a pull up/dip superset because, like I said, the transition is the hard part. If you're just doing pullups and dips you're not doing that.

131- The guy you saw kicking his legs to get through the transition was probably doing that precisely because he didn't have enough strength just to pull himself through. Again, 127 may look easy, but for most people it's not. And doing them with leg kicks isn't worthless -- it helps build the requisite strength. Sort of like doing pushups with your knees on the ground, if regular style is too much weight. Some sort of mechanical assist would probably be more effective for training, but those are hard to come by.

Supposedly, part of strength training involves developing the coordination needed to complete movements effectively. So, a movement that's new or isn't done often will be hard, even if plenty of the right sort of muscle seems to be available.

I suspect this is going to end with my head going through some ceiling tiles.

113- ogged, look, okay, I agree. When I do pull-ups I bring the bar all the way to my nipples. But to even suggest that these women couldn't do a few strict pullups, given the pulling work they are doing, is crazy.

Yes, these extremely fit, very strong women could probably do a few pull-ups. Isn't that what everyone's been saying? A medium-fit guy can do a few or several pull-ups, but only very fit women (who actually work at doing pull-ups) can do the same.

136: You must be used to that sort of thing happening.

127 is a bit sloppy (partially because the bar is too short) , but even still with a bar you need a bit to transition your center of mass around the bar. This is a different motion on rings, for many reasons.

Sounds like most `fitness' gyms don't have rings. A shame, really, as they are better for pull/chin ups, dips, handstands, leg lifts etc. for the same reasons that free weights are better than machines. I don't really know anything about those sorts of gyms, but suspect there are liability issues.

127 s/b the link in 127

138 - Everyone but you in 97 and 106.

140- Handstands on rings are a real bitch. You gymnasts amaze me.

I'd gladly see my gym trade a few of their 'elliptical' trainers for something a bit more interesting. There's some groupthink going on there, possibly. Also, the management doesn't want to scare anybody. Which I can understand, having hated gyms for much of my life.

Of course, as long as there's at least one ergo, there's nothing lacking in terms of what you need for proper fitness.

A kindred spirit. But I don't know why I get into these fitness threads -- I am the anti-Ogged. While I like being strong and fit, actually doing it is painful, and if anything gets me out of my routine, I have a hell of a time getting back in. I keep on not getting back to the gym.

And not getting work done. Will all of you still respect me if I'm unemployed? And riddled with an all-encompassing self-loathing as a result?

mean, one is basically just like the other, only harder. Unless women really are anatomically different in some way I don't at all understand.

Women's strength is generally more concentrated in their legs. Rope climbing and rock climbing are two good examples of activities that are presumed to require a lot of upper body strength. But as my rock-climbing (female) friend tells me, women, who generally don't have that upper body strength, compensate by using their legs, and that often makes them better climbers.

Someone on the Internets says X is the measure of fitness and...we're nearly 60 comments later?

This is really not about us all being so insecure that Brock hurted our feelings. Besides, 60 comments is low for an Unfogged fight.

But the difference between getting your head halfway up the bar and clearing your chin is quite a bit of strength in the shoulders and triceps; it's not trivial.

That's what does it for me. I can get my forehead to the bar easily. It's the last few inches that's the problem.

A medium-fit guy can do a few or several pull-ups, but only very fit women (who actually work at doing pull-ups) can do the same.

Yup. It's just not a side-effect of general fitness for women. You don't have to be a freak to do it, but it's not going to happen if you just weight-train and do cardio.

riddled with an all-encompassing self-loathing

That's not inconsistent with working, you know. In these post-feminist days, you can have it all.

A simple "ogged gets it exactly right" would have sufficed, Cala.

This is really not about us all being so insecure that Brock hurted our feelings.

No, it's about reducing the population via exercise induced coronary thrombosis. If I don't survive the pull-up attempts this evening someone will (perhaps) let y'all know.

140/144- I suspect it's very hard to find a commercial gym with rings. I never have. I think you're right this is likely a liability issue. Although, I've heard that quite a few gyms will let you bring your own, and you can sling them over the cross-cable machine and then do dips or pull-ups/muscles-ups (starting from kneeling).

A simple "ogged gets it exactly right" would have sufficed, Cala.

A simple "Cala gets it exactly right" would have sufficed, too, but, you know, neener.

Rings look like they'd be a bitch, but a lot of fun.

146- Did I really hurt your feelings? Just by saying you're lazy, fat, and out of shape? You pretty damn oversensitive, missy.

(Okay really, wasn't trying to hurt anyone's feelings. I think I was using "fit" differently than most of you, and meant something other than what you seem to think. I also may have been just substantively incorrect. Certainly wasn't trying to hurt anyone's feelings.)

The point is, my feelings *weren't* hurt. You're a pretend internet friend. I just don't think pull-ups are as good a proxy for fitness in women as in men. Still a fun thing to try to do, and it certainly makes you in better shape, but you can do some pretty amazing athletic feats without them.

Marathon runners can't do either pushups or pullups. To them, arm muscle beyond a pretty low level is a dead weight. Your body specializes to what it's doing. In my case, sitting and drinking, though back in the day I was a fitness buff.

Oh, sorry, I see that I misread. But now my feelings are hurt.

Only pedophiles pay attention to "women's" gymnastics".

Yeah, one thing about using top athletes in examples is that they're not often the best examples of fitness and health, as they're often very specialized for whatever their sport is.

Yeah, I was reacting mostly to the 'serious imbalance' language, which struck me as mistaken.

Just to be clear, I'd consider most marathon runners terribly out of shape, or at least terribly out of balance. It's almost impossible to retain lean muscle mass and run those sorts of distances. And Emerson's right: the end result is they can't do pushups or pullups, or much of anything but run. (Jog, really. They don't have the muscle fibers for effective sprinting.)

157 to 159.

Just to be clear, I'd consider most marathon runners terribly out of shape, or at least terribly out of balance.

You're like some sorta French Platonist on this score: "there is an optimal, ideal balance to be found, and vigorous moderation in all things will lead there!"

Bodies come with different aptitudes and shapes. Yes, training can emphasize a particular form: jazz dancers have bigger butts than ballerinas, and Martha Graham dancers look like graceful Greco-Roman wrestlers with perfect breasts. But these are just different ways of being "in shape."

Linebackers, on the other hand, are deformed.

I'm clairvoyant!

159: I generally agree re: marathoners. I wouldn't describe them as out of shape, just specialized, but that's just terminology. But if a woman were say, running five miles a day, doing some lifting, and working on her core strength, I'd likely consider her to be in excellent shape, even if that didn't translate directly into the ability to do a full pull-up. (I have the impression, and I may be wrong, that a guy who ran five miles a day and did occasional lifting and situps would probably be able to do a pullup without much effort.)

The assisted pullup machine at my gym is annoying, in that it seems to be designed for someone with a greater wingspan than I, and so in order to grasp the bar at all, my upper arms are at ninety degrees to my body, which I think works different muscles than if they were in a narrower position. Very frustrating.

Supposedly, part of strength training involves developing the coordination needed to complete movements effectively. So, a movement that's new or isn't done often will be hard, even if plenty of the right sort of muscle seems to be available.

Very true. Powerlifting is really interesting, and they've figured out all kinds of good techniques with progressive loads using chains and bands, explosive reps with sub maximal weights, etc.

Now we're talking about BL-fitness.

And taller than me (although I'm reasonably tall). Mine has two sets of grips -- a very wide grip, that's set lower, and a narrow grip that's set higher. I find the wide grip impossibly difficult, but with the narrow grip I can get the bridge of my nose (about, I think, it's hard to tell exactly without the bar) to where the bar would be, and then the counterweight hits the top of its range of motion, and to get any higher I'd have to lift myself off the counterweight and go unassisted. Maddening.

165 to 162.

165: I thought you were supposed to be a giant?

NB there is a difference between being a competitive marathon runner, and begin able to run a marathon-ish distance tomorrow, say, if you wanted to. Or even half that to make it a little less demanding.

There is a lot of running between sprinting and jogging too, Brock; your characterization was inept. I'll agree that marathon specialists are unbalanced, but most top atheletes at that level are imbalanced (Ever seen an internationally rated kayaker, or velodrome cyclist? They are like mirror images of each other).

I think the reason a lot of people jumped on your pullup example is that it is just a bad proxy for fitness. You can be fit and not be able to do them, you can be not fit and able to do a few. Cala's right that it's the sort of thing that most men tend to get to as a side effect of working out, but that's about it.

which I think works different muscles than if they were in a narrower position.

Yep. Like bench press, altering the width doesn't change which muscles are used so much as shift how much of the load is borne by certain groups. The wider grip really reduces the load on forearm and bicep, and puts it on the lats. Most people don't have a much lat, so it makes it difficult. Also can put a lot of stress on your shoulders with the wide grip.

Just to prove I'm not totally off in left field here (even though I still retract everything I said earlier in the thread), this set of skills standards describes includes the ability to do three pullups (for men or women) as among that which "is the minimum standard for health. Lacking these basic levels of strength, flexibility and work capacity makes daily life unnecessarily limited." (Scroll to end of .pdf for the standards.)

So see, I wasn't being crazy, just very demanding.

165: They're really designed for a 5'10'' guy. On mine, I end up with the wider grip (not great), and still, on the last little bit, my knees have to come off the platform if I'm going to make up the last inch or so.

167: No, no, that's my big sister, the freakishly outsized Dr. Oops. I'm 5'7", generally passing for taller for some reason, but really not particularly tall.

168- most top atheletes at that level are imbalanced

Totally agreed. Professional athletes sacrifice general fitness (and often, health) for specialized performance. No question.

This comment maybe belongs here, so someone can challenge Brock for title of best clean-and-jerk.

172- motherfuck -- you're even the same height as my wife. This is really getting freaky.

170: Okay, doesn't a set of athletic standards that doesn't draw any distinctions between men and women other than in rowing speed strike you as a little off? I'm not saying that the standards aren't achievable, but that on the upper body stuff at least, a woman who's hitting the same standard as a man is going to be significantly closer to her maximum potential (or 'fitter') than he is.

174- isn't it obvious that here at the Mineshaft the competition would have to be who has the best snatch?

Me, I was above that.

170: From what little I've seen of their site, I wouldn't judge the crossfit peoples list as particularly insightful. Everything is short distances (1 mile run?), and it's weighted towards gym type sets. It's ok, and from what little I know of their system, they are basing it on their philosophy. It's hardly gospel though.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd have to include some long-distance stuff there (not necc. running, as that has problems) and sustained cardio. Particularly at their `advanced athlete' level +

Most people don't have a much lat, so it makes it difficult. Also can put a lot of stress on your shoulders with the wide grip.

I had to stop this summer as I was developing shoulder & back spasms. So close, too.

176- doesn't a set of athletic standards that doesn't draw any distinctions between men and women other than in rowing speed strike you as a little off?

Yes.

175: Unfogged -- we aim to unsettle.

`particularly insightful' s/b `particularly insightful as to generally agreed upon standards of fitness'

that would have been more clear.

170: Cool. Definitely based around gyms and powerlifting, and definitely skewed towards power & upper body. What's an L-sit? If it is what I think it is, then they're fun.

re: 173

Some sports are a pretty good proxy for general fitness in the sense that sports seem to require a good mix of cardiovascular fitness, core body strength and flexibility. Others do not, with marathon running and some forms of weightlifting at (fairly arbitrary) extremes in either direction.*

* Neither of which is particularly good for you, in the longer term, I suspect ...

L-sit.

Haven't read the entire thread yet, but part of the problem here I think is use of the word fitness. Brock's assuming a certain level of strength training I suspect when he's talking about fitness. But for many people, especially women, they think of more cardio based workouts when they think fitness. Part of this is likely due to the horrible information that gets bandied around about weight training, with women thinking it will make them bulky, and all kinds of other horseshit.

More accurate would probably be to say that women doing certain types of training, but can't do pullups have a strength imbalance.

187- That's what I said in 61. I warn you that it didn't go over well.

187: Like I said before, I disagree. While women can train to do pull-ups and all sorts of things, an inability to do a pull-up for a woman doesn't translate into a strength imbalance like it does for a man. I'm presuming here that by 'strength imbalance' we don't just mean 'inability to do a pull-up', but something indicating either overtraining or a paucity of muscle development.

This doesn't seem to be the case to me; sure, a woman who can't do a pullup but is otherwise in shape probably isn't balanced just like a similarly trained guy would be, but that seems to me to be ignoring anatomy. We just don't have the same hormones and body structure. Do boobs help you do pull-ups?

Yeah. I'm a little puzzled by the concept of imbalance here (that is, there is one true ratio for how much force you should be able to exert with your quads to how much with your lats? Surely there's a pretty broad range. Bicycle racers and kayakers may be outside that range, but it's still pretty broad). But for most women starting a balanced weightlifting program, not focussing on any particular area to the exclusion of any other, they will get quite unusually strong in the lower body before their back and arms are strong enough to do a pullup.

A normal balance of strength for a woman is much more tilted toward the lower body than for a man. This doesn't make women unbalanced, it makes them women.

Calapwned.

I think the main problem I have for pullups as a proxy for fitness is that they can be defeated by a lack of bicep strength --- but not a critical lack. Bicep strength just isn't that useful. Now true, there are other much more important muscle groups at play, but that doesn't change the fact that a very fit person with is strong where it is important (core, abdoment, back) and reasonably strong in arms and legs may not be able to do them ... but it might just mean they aren't very strong in the biceps. Which, when you get down to it isn't very important and is a pretty useless lower bar for fitness. Relatively weak arms that are balanced bi's to tri's etc. (to avoid potential injury) are just fine by any sane measure of `fitness' I can think of, is all I'm saying.

190 LB; we've been very sloppy with the terminology `imbalanced'. Technically, this is important with muscle groups that have to work together, because an imbalance can cause or agravate injury. Between unrelated groups, it really isn't that important. As you note, some sports can exaggerate this.

To piggyback on 190, if a man doing a weightlifting regimen were to gain leg strength at the same rate a woman does, without the corresponding gains in upper body strength, I would be inclined to say that his training regimen is leaving him unbalanced. The woman might want to bump up her upper body workouts, if she's set on doing a pull-up, but it's not as though the disparity suggests she's liable to injure herself or is neglecting her upper body.

I may be predispositioned differently, but when I was in college and working out a lot more regularly, I was ten pounds heavier, and nearly all of it was in my legs. I have slender arms and shoulders and a narrow back.

I'll have you people know this thread has now taken up my *entire* damn day, on a day when I really needed to get some work done. So if I've hurt anyone's feelings, well, just understand that I've suffered too.

193- true. Maybe instead of 'unbalanced' we should say 'disabled'?

Differently abled, please. Think of the little girls.

193: I've been wondering about that. I know what 'imbalanced' means in that sense -- that you don't want to get opposing muscle groups too far out of whack with each other -- but whatever Brock was talking about (and now gswift) was new to me.

196: Comity!

200!

198: I wasn't being careful, but I was thinking of 'imbalanced' as referring mostly to the training regimen: does it include upper body and lower body, does it include core strength, &c. If a guy were strong in his lower body but couldn't do a pull-up, his training regimen is probably to blame, as most men can do a pull-up if they're at all in shape. He's probably focusing too much on his lower body, and should add more arm stuff.

For a woman like me... I honestly think that if I wanted to optimize my ability to do pullups, I'd have to ignore my lower body entirely. Because my lower body really takes to weightlifting, and while building muscle is great, it's still an extra five pounds my poor arms have to try to lift.

I, on the other hand, if I were really serious about wanting to do chinups, would probably be best advised to run long distances and live on tuna and cottage cheese for six months. I could do a couple if I weighed now what I'd weighed in college, but that's thirty pounds away.

I'd really like to be able to do pistol squats without dying. (It's basically the position for a sit spin in figure skating. Not that I can spin well.)

Way back up to what Jackmormon said about body types and dance: it really is striking, when you think about it, how specialized the art forms are to body type. My cousin competes in ballroom dancing, and she's noted that she just doesn't have the right figure for ballroom. She's petite and thin and in shape, but the ballroom 'look' favors long, slender legs, and hers are like mine: roughly triangular thighs, shorter proportions. Even if she's more technically skilled, the moves are going to look better on someone longer-limbed. (So she wears slightly longer skirts and plays up the fact that she has amazing abs.)

Makes sense, I suppose -- it's visual art, so the point is what it looks like rather than what you're doing in some objective sense.

So, if you could select female embryos for being able to do pull-ups...

204: Yeah. I just wonder how many eating disorders/body image issues result from a girl with one build trying to look like something that isn't just slender, but something her body isn't meant to do at all.

Oh, I think that's a huge part of the problem -- that the ideal girls compare themselves to isn't just unrealistically thin, it's a very particular body type that's delicate enough to be fantastically slender without looking scrawny. Most women would get to unpleasantly skeletal looking long before they got near model proportions.

I used the phrase "certain types of training" because I realize my perception is from strength training.

When doing any kind of strength training, a good routine should try to compensate for your weaknesses as well as work your strengths. It's just human nature to focus on your strengths. Not something unique to women, check out all the top heavy guys around the gym.

That being said, build can make a big difference as well my 5'9 170 pounds is much more conducive to pullups than 6'3 and 300 pounds. A friend of mine who I've got a three inches in height and 30 pounds on can easily match my bench with the same amount of training. He's got short arms and big triceps. But start working up on the deadlifts, and I leave him behind.

And yeah, if you're a woman with a lot of muscle in your lower body, and you're naturally small in the biceps and lats, you're kind of up a creek for pullups. But I've watched firsthand for years how both sexes train their weaknesses less.

Guys, for the record, are very often imbalanced in the other direction. Reams of guys can bench as much or more than their deadlift, which is kind of absurd.

I just wonder how many eating disorders/body image issues result from a girl with one build trying to look like something that isn't just slender, but something her body isn't meant to do at all.

The training imbalances aren't helped by notions of beauty either. A lot of people train for whay they think will look good. Women tend to shoot for great legs and ass, and the guys are all trying to get huge arms and pecs.

Yeah, when I started doing more lifting, I had to sit on some qualms when I realized that the largest visual effect was that my arms were bigger (not that they're anything remarkable, just bigger than they were.) It hadn't been an esthetic effect I'd been actively shooting for. But, you know, what the hell.

But I've watched firsthand for years how both sexes train their weaknesses less.

That's true in any athletic activity; it's just more fun to work on the stuff you're already good at. And I think more women should work on their upper-body strength; it's good for you and seems for me, at least, to eliminate a lot of headaches and neck strain.

I had to sit on some qualms when I realized that the largest visual effect was that my arms were bigger

For me, it's that the muscles around my collarbones and upper back plump up (and you can see little veins if I'm actively lifting), and I feel (although it's hardly accurate) like one of those little gymnast girls with no neck.

People shooting for pure aesthetics has lead to all kinds of nonsense being bandied around. Think of all the ads for women with some pilates idiot talking about "getting those long dancer muscles", or body builder types doing half curls to work their "lower bicep". People, your muscle shape/lenght is what it is You can make them bigger, or lose fat and look more defined, but that shape is here to stay.

OK, you all are nuts. Ogged writes the epitome of an Ogged post, touching gracefully and gently on themes that are all too easy to misjudge and body-slam. Bitzer follows up with 37, describing one of the most rewarding parts of being human....and you spend 200 comments talking about pull-ups?

Nuts, I say.

Not so much nuts, as disagreeable. Ogged's post was wonderful, but what do you say to it other than I'm glad you're back in the water and have realized what really makes you happy? Brock, on the other hand, was wrong about pullups, which allows for hours of fruitful bickering.

214 gets it exactly right.

Yeah, this isn't really the kind of blog where the commenters congratulate the posters on good posts or are nice to them in general. We prefer to argue endlessly.

so long as it isn't about anything too important

216: No we don't.

Should I have another beer? Help me out here, internets.

Oh, why not.

LB makes a good point.

218: Nice comment, Stanley.

NOT!

This is another, better set of performance standards, reasonably broken down between men and women, and by weight. The lowest standards purport to be "the minimum level of strength required to maintain a
reasonable quality of life in a sedentary individual". Unfortunately, no pullups on this chart. Too bad.

You know what's interesting to me? How easy it is to get people -- famous people, accomplished people, or just ordinary people -- to help solve your problem. I used to have a job where I would call people up and ask to interview them. I couldn't pay them, and I wouldn't be able to tell them when or where or even if the results would be published.

They didn't know me from a hole in the wall (although they sometimes knew my organization) and yet still they helped. Generously. A half-hour, an hour, sometimes with follow up questions by e-mail. I did one set of interviews by phone across the country, the week after the Sept. 11 attacks. People were unbelievably nice. The week after! The country was still reeling. Rumors were flying about other attacks. I was calling people at night, at home, and asking them to talk at length about their day jobs.

It's not all that different from all of us collaborating to try to get Teo a date, or help mrh figure out grad school.

Shorter comment: Yes, it's easier to comment when you can quibble with a post. But we spend a lot of time around here problem-solving too.

I don't know that we qualify as actually solving many problems. Poking at them, vigorously, sure.

Are you drunk, Witt? Getting maudlin will get you banned, you know.

Oh, were you out the week we solved the I-P question, LB? Strangely, I can't find the link to that thread...

226 is right. For example, I still haven't decided if I should have another beer.

Beer has a lot of calories, don't drink it right before going to bed if you aren't really in the mood for it. Especially if it's the last one you have left.

Nope, not drunk.

(How can I be banned? I have a fruit basket and everything.)

Has the drinking of every beer from Teo's 6-pack been logged here at unfogged?

I post here, and I'm banned. Repeatedly. You get used to it.

232: Not yet.

The drinking of every beer that's been drunk, I meant.

224: That one is interesting too, but pretty limiting in that it is a `strength table' which is only loosely correlated to physical fitness. Particularly at the lower levels, cardio is much more important.

That set of standards in 170 is weird. The pullup benchmark from intermediate to advanced jumps from 20 to 40. Jesus. 20 is fairly attainable for a lot of guys, but man, doubling that?

And then the other one doesn't seem to jump enough. Elite bench when you weigh 165 is 319, but elite bench if you weigh 320+ is 425.

I don't think I mentioned the one I drank last night. Other than that, yeah, probably.

237: that is a bit weird. i didn't look at the numbers that closely.

Following on to 224, and hopefully wrapping everything together, I would call it "unbalanced" if someone was advanced in several of those categories and novice in others. It means you're neglecting something important. And risking injury -- having some parts of your body significantly stronger than others is a bad idea. Your body should work together as one piece.

And my broader point is that one *could* add pullups to that chart, and I think the standards for adult women for all but the "untrained" category would be positive numbers. (At least in the lower weight classes.) I could be wrong. Cala and LB think I am. Maybe a bodyweiht pullup is more in line with the intermediate standards. But I'm not sure.

This is really weird -- I have a bad cold, and just answered the phone, after spending the day working in my office and not really talking to anyone. Apparently I completely lost my voice sometime during the day. Very disturbing trying to answer the phone and not being able to produce more than a breathy squeak.

241- oh, that sucks. Very sorry to hear it. I think tea with honey is supposed to help.

And brandy.

Tea with honey and brandy? Hmm...

I am fond of hot lemonade with rum for these occasions, myself.

240: Using myself as a reasonably fit benchmark, and as someone who does (or did recently) a fair amount of upper-body work, I can say that I can hit 'advanced athlete' in a number of those categories, but pull-ups aren't even on the radar. Now either I'm horribly out of balance (but I don't think so, or, if I am, everyone else is really fucked), or, as it seems, the standards there are designed for men (and the bodyweight % is meant to include women, just not smaller men.), especially that the difference pretty much breaks down into lower body/core vs. upper body.

hot liquid with alcohol and acid and sugar rocks the colds.

The fun bit is that I'm now trying to call for a car to take me home -- I wonder if I'm going to be able to successfully communicate.

And my broader point is that one *could* add pullups to that chart, and I think the standards for adult women for all but the "untrained" category would be positive numbers. (At least in the lower weight classes.)

I was snotty, and wrong in my implication, when I asked if you knew many women who do pullups as part of their exercise routine. But in the same vein, if this is a good set of standards (which I don't have a real sense of, but figure it probably is), a reasonable way of checking your intuition would be seeing if you could find women who met the novice but not the intermediate standard, who nonetheless did pullups.

Tea with honey and lemon is good, but tea with brandy and honey means you really don't care whether it's good or not.

237- 425 is a pretty respectable bench. I don't weigh anything close to 320 lbs. (or know a lot of guys that big), but that doesn't seem obviously low to me just looking at it. Is it? What would an elite 320 lb. male bench?

I have a hard time picturing a lean 320 lb man. He'd have to be awfully big.

248- Cala meets the advanced standard (on things like presses and cleans, too, Cala?), and she can't do pullups, so I think I was way off in my assessment.

Whoops. Intermediate in most, advanced in a couple. Sorry for the mistype: brain not talking to fingers. I am not that kickass!

But it does break down with the upper body lagging behind pretty significantly, and that's with significant work.

I do think in general more women can build upper body strength. To the extent that most think they can't, it's probably due to years of miseducation about 'toning.'

425 is a pretty respectable bench. I don't weigh anything close to 320 lbs. (or know a lot of guys that big), but that doesn't seem obviously low to me just looking at it. Is it? What would an elite 320 lb. male bench?

It's weird relative to the mark for the 165 lb guy, who's expected to damn near bench double his body weight.

I have a hard time picturing a lean 320 lb man. He'd have to be awfully big.

Yeah, a lean 320 is frigging huge.

I have a hard time picturing a lean 320 lb man. He'd have to be awfully big.

Shaquille O'Neal weighs 325, and even at 7 feet and change nobody would call him lean.

I don't think anyone is a lean 320. A lean 250 is freaking huge. Also beware of height effects in that table - I'm 220 and not as lean as I'd like, but 6'4"-220 and 5'11"-220 are two very different things.

Clearly you are forgetting about the dolphins.

Could a bear be 320 and lean? I think so. Fucking. Bears.

240: Your body should work together as one piece.

Look, this might have everything to do with the fact that I'm a former rather serious dancer, but when you say "work together," I ask "at what?" Any imaginable task or activity that might come up? A perfect ratio of weight liftable per body part? This is, for me, a ridiculously idealized goal, one so abstract that I cannot fathom putting myself through extensive training to try to achieve it, and I certainly don't accept it as a normative description for "fitness." We may have to agree to disagree, though.

Shaquille O'Neal weighs 325, and even at 7 feet and change nobody would call him lean.

Shaq is listed at 325, but no way.

There has to be a +300lb. defensive lineman who's reasonably lean, but I haven't found him yet. A world'ss strongest man competitor might do it.

Brock sounds a little like a cult member on this topic.

Andre the Giant weighed from 380 to 550, says Wiki. Would it it have been immoral for Andre to mettle with his children's genes so they could share in the experience of being a "big man" (ahem)?

But it does break down with the upper body lagging behind pretty significantly, and that's with significant work.

Based off my own experience, I'd be surprised if the lower bodyweights for women in the advanced range of that chart couldn't do a pullup, but wouldn't surprise me a bit if a 198 pound woman at that level wasn't good for pullups. And of course heighth is a big deal here. 5'4 and 130 lb. muscular woman is a far cry from 5'10 and 130. No pullups in the intermediate range wouldn't surprise me at all at those numbers, ie, 132 pounds, benching 95.

I don't think anyone is a lean 320.

Ferrigno was about that at his peak, and he's 6'5. Some of those big WWE types are probably there or a bit bigger, but not common at all.

261: No way. There's no such thing as a lean defensive linesman, and even the bigger world's strongest man competitors were only like 6'7" or 6'8", and I'd be surprised if they were even in the neighborhood of 300, much less 340.

Is that the competition where they put round stones on pillars and similar competitions? Because while the guys are all strong, 'lean' doesn't come to mind in the competitions I idly watched on ESPN once; 'built like an ox', maybe.

264: as much as I distrust wikipedia, they say Ferrigno was 275 at his peak. Looking at pictures, that sounds much more plausible to me (6'4") than 320.

Seriously, when I see all these stats flash by, I'm thinking +6 Strength, +3 Agility...

266: yes. And throw empty kegs over pole-vault bars, and pull fire trucks with their teeth. It's fantastic, and I think responsible for my one and only F in college.

I'm using "lean" to mean "doesn't have much body fat" so, for example, Mariusz Pudzianowski (video) is ultra-lean, but still built like an ox. And here you go, Jesse Marunde is listed at 6'4", 320lbs.

Just couldn't get that fire truck to budge, eh, Jake?

Shawn Bradley is lean. But even at 7'6", he's only listed at 275.

270: The bar *bends* in that video. Damnnnn.

Nope. You should have seen the dental bills. Not to mention the cops taking a dim view of those under the age of 21 handling large containers of alcohol in a way that indicated they might have been drinking.

The Governator.

269 -- Book Recommendation

: as much as I distrust wikipedia, they say Ferrigno was 275 at his peak.

I've seen articles that refer to him at 315, but his site says 6'5 and 285, so he doesn't make it.

But the Warlord does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Szopinski

Here's an in-print edition of the book in 276.

One of the reviewers doesn't seem to be a fan, though:

This was a big sack of lies! There is just no way he did the things he said!...Or that he pulled a plane with his hair. That just can't happen! Hair is not strong enough! Not for anyone!

Man, even in the WWE, which has a ton of huge guys, very few people are pushing past 300.

http://www.wrestlezone.com/info.php?section=stats

One of the reviewers doesn't seem to be a fan, though:

That review is awesome. The bullet claim does seem to be a bit much.

Joe was a liar and a disgrace to Judaism. He said that he was tarred and feathered and shot in the forehead... and was fine... what a lie! The bullet ended up smashed... lol.

278 -- thanks,

All of the other reviewers think that reviewer is crazy. And, not only do they have pictures of him holding back the plane with his hair, he also, IIRC, had part of his scalp tear free when he tried that stunt. So I don't think they were just making it up.

I don't remember the bullet claim, but I've only looked at the book.

This did get me to see if I could find any more documentation on the internet and there's surprisingly little.

This has some pictures and the prologue to the book.

Here is a collection of links

From the first link:

The crowd watched in silence as he bent horseshoes with his bare hands and bars of steel across the bridge of his nose, exploded chains with the expansion of his chest, and drove spikes through planks w metal-covered wood with nothing more than the power of his palm. Then the crowd came to its feet, and with good reason. This man was eighty-two years old. A half century after my grandfather had first seen him, I sat ringside, watching the strongman. I could hardly believe that Joseph "the Mighty Atom" Greenstein was still alive. As if deposited by a time machine, he stood in the center ring ot Madison Square Garden and seemed to transcend age and time

An eighty-two year old that Yglesias couldn't have beaten up.

Oh it didn't seem like it was made up, that one guy was just amusingly outraged about the whole thing. I'm picturing him sputtering, shouting "inconceivable!" all the while.

No problem, it was just that once I started thinking about this book that I haven't seen or thought about for years I was curious whether I could find any more information.

There's no such thing as a lean defensive linesman

Jevon Kearse fits the bill, as does Dwight Freeney. But note that both those guys are 265-275 lbs., so you've still got a way to go before you find a lean 320-pounder.

262- what cult?

lollygagging!

Richard Seymour is listed at 6' 6" and 310 lbs.

260- what the fuck do you mean "at what"? Gladitorial combat, obvs. Also, wrestling alligators. Or boa constrictors.

More generally, I mean *not* training to be exceptionally good "at" any particular type of thing, but at reasonably good at roughly everything.

289- so what does he bench?

213- and you spend 200 comments talking about pull-ups?

There was recently a 300 comment thread about a fucking bread recipe. So...

Following on 287, just so we're clear, I'm not trying to come across as some badass. I'm not even in that great a shape anymore. It sounds like Cala would have a good chance at whipping my ass (non-consensually). More or less, I just like making other people feel bad, and that was the point of all the comments above. Doesn't make the comments untrue (although I think some of them probably were), but that's the motivation.

I'm not sure I'd consider Richard Seymour lean.

Look, no 320 lb person is "lean". Unless maybe hi is 9 and a half feet tall, and probably not even then. I think the quest was to find someone approaching 320 but muscular and in shape, not just fat. (And then somehow find out how much he could bench, since that was what promted all this.) But looking for a "lean" 300 lb person doesn't even make sense.

That's kind of what I was wondering about the chart of strength by weight. Is there any reason to expect that, say, a really big lean guy who weighs 250 pounds would be weaker that some guy the same height and with the same muscle mass who's also carrying 70 pounds of extra fat? Because if not (which would be my guess) there's no reason to have the chart go up that high at all -- the standards make sense in terms of reasonably lean weights, not what actually shows up on the scale.

(And because I'm vaguely embarrassed to have spent this much time talking about weight lifting at my current fairly pathetic level of fitness, I should note that Cala could totally kick my ass.)

I doubt anyone was confused, but protocol compels me to note that 295 was me.

292 -- the function "one can live without x" returns true when the input is "pull-ups", false when the input is "bread". Just sayin.

You can live without bread. *Especially* home cooked, crusty bread.

And because I'm vaguely embarrassed to have spent this much time talking about weight lifting at my current fairly pathetic level of fitness, I should note that Cala could totally kick my ass.

Oh, hardly. I'm not in bad shape now, but not superwoman, and not only do you lift, which I've slacked off on lately in favor of ballet class and yoga, you've got several inches on me. More of a reach in the girl slap-fights, y'know.

Brock can probably bench press me.

More of a reach in the girl slap-fights, y'know.

Here's a clip of LB and Cala fighting. Don't ask how I got a hold of this. They seem pretty evenly matched to me.

I mean, here's a clip. Damn.

How did you get a hold of that?

The paparazzi never leave me alone.

You know what stat kills me? The 225 lb. bench press for reps. Some of those NFL dudes can crank out an awful lot.

294: I wouldn't call him fat if I were you. Anyway, we're talking defensive linemen--he used to stand next to Ted Washington.

291: I don't know the number, but a lot. The guy used to haul bricks.

305- is the record 43? Yeah, that's pretty impressive.

Oh, and a semi-related thing, which I'm mentioning just because it shocks me how many people don't seem to realize, and I was just out in the hallway watching someone lumber along with improper form, and cringing for his poor back: when you walk, you ought with every step to be pushing yourself forward with your ass.

A lot of people seem to use their hip flexors for most of their forward motion. Thats's not good for you. Your hips are just along for the ride; your ass should be doing the work. Your back will thank you, you'll stand up a lot straighter when you walk, and over time your butt will look a lot better, too.

ATM.

I mean, holy crap. 43 reps? That's just insane. How much weight could I press 43 times? The bar?

Oh, and a semi-related thing, which I'm mentioning just because it shocks me how many people don't seem to realize, and I was just out in the hallway watching someone lumber along with improper form, and cringing for his poor back: when you walk, you ought with every step to be pushing yourself forward with your ass.

I have no idea how to enact this. Does it start with tucking your tailbone under more? Taking smaller steps? Please advise.

Also, this time of year, my poor back generally suffers under being huddled against the weather in addition to the usual abuses of carrying a heavy bag around that I normally heap upon it, so it may all be hopeless.

Does it start with tucking your tailbone under more? Taking smaller steps?

The first step is binding your feet...

I'd say probably the first step is sucking in your gut. Changes the angle of your pelvis.

Tucking one's tailbone is the wrong image for most movement since that metaphor often leads people to torque their spines in harmful ways. Think more of letting your tailbone fall, or, similarly, of dropping your whole pelvis. That's for alignment. Then to move, you want to think of being pushed from behind; this is sometimes easier to do with knees bent more than usual.

Since I imagine that most of us spend a lot of time sitting at a desk, we probably could all also do with more stretching of the hip flexors.

312: while walking, focus on *pushing* each leg back by squeezing your glutes, rather than pulling each leg forward with you hip flexors. Your leg will pretty much swing forward on its own when you lift it -- you don't really need to pull it at all. 313 is probably also right. And carrying heavy bags coudl make walking with correct posture more difficult, but also probably more important.

Right on, I'll give it a whirl on my walk home tonight. Thanks.

Think more of letting your tailbone fall, or, similarly, of dropping your whole pelvis. That's for alignment. Then to move, you want to think of being pushed from behind; this is sometimes easier to do with knees bent more than usual.

I'm visualizing this mode of walking, and somehow my hand begins drifting up next to my face to mime holding a cigar. ("I shot an elephant in my pajamas last night. What he was doing in my pajamas I'll never know.")

Shouldn't the propelling come from the upper hamstring, not the glutes? Right *under* the big bubble muscles?

317.--Well, that would be a good exercise to practice with. That upper hamstring muscle is often tricky to locate, and sometimes you have to move in an exagerrated, ridiculous way to break up some of your engrained patterns.

And besides, I identify with Harpo.

318-Maybe. I don't know. How do you flex your upper hamstring? I've always thought of it as the ass doing the pushing, but maybe it's some muscle right there underneath.

314: In ballet class, I had a really hard time with this until I thought of it as 'contracting lower abs' to pull the pelvis into alignment.

I have a pretty curved spine anyway, and with a non-ballet figure it makes my butt look huge when I try to do pliés if I'm not really careful.

Isn't your hamstring the 'kick yourself in the butt' muscle, bending your knees?

I always thought of glutes for pivoting the leg at the hips, and hamstrings for pivots at the knee. But I've never studied physical therapy, or that much sports medicine.

323, 324: Comity! Confessedly ignorant comity, but comity!

Comity? I thought that was more commonly referred to as Lizardpwnage.

Pivoting at the knee? Knees don't pivot. Glutes contract for jumping, and your upper hamstrings pull you forwards. I'm not sure what your hip flexors do other than do all the work in ballet leg lifts (there is no way such a little muscle can pick up my whole leg) and stabilize you in squats.

Thanks guys -- I tried this on my walk out to lunch just now (well I don't really have enough awareness of my component parts to be sure I was "pushing my legs forward with my ass" -- but I was certainly striding purposefully) -- and definitely turned a comely feminine head or two.

Knees don't pivot?

327: Hinging at the knee, then. Bending your knee.

Isn't your hamstring the 'kick yourself in the butt' muscle

Yeah, but it goes up higher and is more complicated than we usually associate it with being. The big ass-muscle is a pretty blunt instrument for everyday use, to put it, um, weirdly. I mean, it'll get used in everything, since it's so powerful, and relying on it will neglect some of the smaller, tricksier muscles.

322.--Be careful not to lock yourself into a new torque! Ballet teachers can be really really bad at working with people who need to find a functional lower-body alignment. Lower-abdomen contraction is one way to look at it, but if you can find a way to relax into the proper shape, to let gravity work on your pelvis and pull up (not in) along the front abdomen muscles, I think you'll move more easily. (Caveat: so says the woman who went from Ballachine to neo-Límon.)

Hinge or bend work too, but I still don't know what's wrong with pivot. Does that word not mean what I think it means?

It does, but in relation to anatomical joints I think it has a sense of swivel rather than merely hinge which Cala was reacting to. No one's wrong, just different idiolects.

No one's wrong, just different idiolects.

LizardBreath is banned!

Following on to 308: all of you should also start eating healthier. And stretching more. And stop wasting so much time on the damn internet!

331: Everyone else in my class has flat butts. It's really not fair. Fun class though. It's basically a bunch of women grad students in their mid-20s who have the mindset "I never got to do this as a kid but my life is going to have some pink ballet shoes in it", so it's a very happy class.

I was thinking of pivot as what happens when your foot is planted and you twist on that knee, ripping the hell out of it. Bad juju.

Everyone else in my class has flat butts. It's really not fair.

Wait, having a flat butt is good?

For ballet. Outside of class, I expect Cala is more the envied than the envier.

Nah, I just have chunky legs.

Everyone else in my class has flat butts. It's really not fair.

Not fair for them, you mean? Surely you don't mean for yourself. Surely.

And what you describe as pivoting seems to me to just be pivoting in a different direction, one in which you are correct knees don't pivot. But again, I may be misusing the word.

I should really start previewing occassionally.

I wish I could find a ballet class like yours, Cala. I've been wanting to take ballet for some time, but I'm scared.

Maybe a university gym? That's where I'm doing it. And the class really is beginners, and it's completely low-pressure. And really ridiculous to see all of us try to learn a pirouette.

My brother and I took ballet as young'ins. When we protested (after being mocked by the other boys at school), my mom informed us that the '85 Bears took ballet, too, for agility and then we were fine with it for another year or so.

339.---But that means you have mad hops, though, right? I tend to the burly-legged myself, and I used to school the waifish lasses with my tour jêtés.

[~sending mind-rays~] Modern dance has much healthier ideas about lower-pelvis alignment! Its movement vocabulary is more complex and better adapted for human physiology! Horton technique--practiced most notably by the Alvin Ailey school--requires a strong butt and legs, and is fucking gorgeous and feels wonderful! [~end mind-ray transmission~]

Your mind-ray transmission has been received, JM. Over and out.

a university gym

Ack! Watch out for shin splints! Warm up thoroughly before jumping! Roll through your feet!

I see now that a dance school remarkably near my apartment offers a class entitled "Horton I".

But that means you have mad hops, though, right?

I like jumping. [mad grin.] Though I don't have any jêtés with tours yet, just the little ones, but I can make them go up-up-up!

347: It's taught by an older woman who many moons ago danced professionally, and it's in one of the 'dance classrooms' with a weird, softer floor.

Take it! I loved the Horton-influenced classes I took. It's a really sane dance technique. Where the movement of ballet values the appearance of fragility, Horton-based movement emphasizes strength. Graceful strength, if you're good at it, but certainly not the delicate flower of ballet technique. Ailey dancers are absolutely hott.

350.--At my old university they told us that the old gym floors had been rejiggered to make them more dance-friendly, but *everyone* who danced seriously on those floors wound up with shin splints. Of course, right when I graduated they opened up a spectacular new dance facility...

See, FL, I don't know what you were complaining about. We started off with ogged talking about getting swimming back in his life, and ended up with these three talking about getting dance (back) in to their lives. The pullups were just a detour.

Ailey dancers are absolutely hott.

This, absolutely.

352: Good point. Still, we're not doing too much jumping yet. Mostly trying to determine which little muscle it is that promotes turn out, and then work it until it says 'fine, okay, I give.'

My dance teacher in high school was an Ailey-type dancer. She was so tall and graceful (and not even really particularly thin!) and had a very strong lower body (read: shapely ass and big hips) and she was always very calm and lovely.

Mostly trying to determine which little muscle it is that promotes turn out, and then work it until it says 'fine, okay, I give.'

Sounds like almost all ballet classes, actually. Ballet has a really odd relationship to women jumping; I think it has to do with how slippery pointe shoes are.

To my (wholly untrained) mind, it seems that it has an odd relationship to women as it's trying to promote jumping without causing the quads and glutes to gain any more bulk.

Farbeit from me to defend ballet, but I think you've got the causal relationship a little wrong here. It's not the muscle bulk but the effect that movements that would build bulk would create. So, a lissome little hop, even one that happens to get up four feet and have a full split, is preferred to a mighty leap. And since the carriage of a female ballet dancer is so upright, the default position so centered, it's almost physically impossible for them to crouch for a big spring.

Ballet certainly has a odd relationship with women, though.

I can remember from when I subscribed to Velo News articles by top women cyclists, sometimes as diaries, in which they agonized over how training developed their butts and thighs in ways they knew would be thought unattractive. Must be common to other sports too.

361
Maybe it's just the hats.

This is why all children should take African dance classes.

363: beats the hell out of inculcating gym culture.

JM, have you seen Les Ballets Trockadero de Monte Carlo? If so, I'd be interested to hear your opinion. I saw them at the Joyce a few years ago and had expected just kind of a campy drag show but it was much more than that - yes, it has a lot of humor, but it really made me think a lot about gender and dance. For some reason, I found that watching these men do moves that one usually associates with delicate ballerinas really highlighted the strength required and contradiction between dancers' power vs. beauty.

And the Trocks had a lot to say about 360.

And, upon googling, I see the Trocks just happen to be at the Joyce again at the end of December.

Ooo, my daughter's gym teacher is an ex-Trock, and I'm very impressed by that.

No, I've never had a chance to see them, although I've been very curious about whether I'd enjoy them. On the one hand, I have a big emotional stake in contemporary re-imaginings and creative critiques of ballet. On the other hand, well, I have to admit that the whole Ballanchine background means my instincts are crazily purist where ballet is concerned.

If you're interested in checking them out, drop me an email. They're doing two programs: (1) Swan Lake, Esmeralda, Gaite Parisienne and (2) Les Sylphides, The Cage, Pas de Quatre, Dying Swan, Raymonda's Wedding. Both contain works that I haven't seen them do.

Holy $44 ticket price! I'll have to think about it a bit, I'm afraid.

370 - I hadn't seen that yet. Got caught up in clicking through the site. I'll keep an eye out for any deals I see.