Jump to content

Girls and pull ups


Recommended Posts

I was wondering - how many of you girls can do pull ups?

I mean full ones with no weight support.

 

I'm the only girl I know who can do this and I find it kinda weird.

Some of the girls I know can hang with their chin over the bar for quite a while but they can't push themselves up.

 

Just wondering...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was wondering - how many of you girls can do pull ups?

I mean full ones with no weight support.

 

Can you do chin-ups too? How about push-ups?

 

Can do all of these. (not sure which one is push up and which one is pull ups though )

Edited by RoadToSoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A chin-up is when you grip the bar with your palms facing you. Similar to picking up a bar for doing bicep curls. These tend to be easier.

 

A pull-up is when you have your palms facing away from you. They tend to be harder to do, and they hit your upper back muscles more ( chin-ups, if done with close grips, really hit your biceps ).

 

A push-up is a different exercise altogether. You start on the floor with only your toes and the palms of your hands touching the floor. You then lower and raise yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and how many (pull-ups and chin-ups) can you do RoadtoSoy?

A fit man do 25 and more, I don't know for a woman.

Try to improve your max by 2 or more each week.

 

Shorely there is shome mishtake? I can reliably do 10 pullups (consecutively), and I have been working at them for nearly 6 months now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and how many (pull-ups and chin-ups) can you do RoadtoSoy?

A fit man do 25 and more, I don't know for a woman.

Try to improve your max by 2 or more each week.

 

Shorely there is shome mishtake? I can reliably do 10 pullups (consecutively), and I have been working at them for nearly 6 months now!

 

In the U.S. Army, they have people do 25 pullups for some sort of test, I can't remember what. I have seen them doing them and the form is atrocious. They jerk upwards and fast as they can and just drop. I add weight to my pullups, so my rep max isn't as good as it could be. I bet I can do about 15 good ones (one second or more up and down, no jerking).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and how many (pull-ups and chin-ups) can you do RoadtoSoy?

A fit man do 25 and more, I don't know for a woman.

Try to improve your max by 2 or more each week.

 

wtf? that's a pretty extreme and arbitrary definition of fit. It that excludes lots of people. Most people who don't train pull-ups often certainty can't do 25 and many people who don't do pull-ups are fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and how many (pull-ups and chin-ups) can you do RoadtoSoy?

A fit man do 25 and more, I don't know for a woman.

Try to improve your max by 2 or more each week.

 

wtf? that's a pretty extreme and arbitrary definition of fit. It that excludes lots of people. Most people who don't train pull-ups often certainty can't do 25 and many people who don't do pull-ups are fit.

 

Well of course there's many levels of fitness, many definitions for words, like to be injured may mean to have a minor cut on a finger or it may mean to have an arm chopped off. Aslo, there was a debate about the word "healthy" in another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps I should have said : a fit weightlifter or a fit bodybuilder.

Because a runner can be "fit" but not necessarily be able to do 25 chin-ups.

But 25 pull-ups is usually a standard to define how fit is a person who lift weights, like the numbers he can bench or squat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps I should have said : a fit weightlifter or a fit bodybuilder.

Because a runner can be "fit" but not necessarily be able to do 25 chin-ups.

But 25 pull-ups is usually a standard to define how fit is a person who lift weights, like the numbers he can bench or squat.

 

I'm a weightlifter and would consider myself fit(I can lift my bodyweight overhead), but couldn't come close to doing 25 reps of pull ups, I could do maybe 5. Different people train different things and are good at different things. I've read your log, you do many things I don't think I could(as far as reps go), but l am guessing likewise you'd find things I do that you can't. A definition of fit that excludes 99% of people(i.e 25 pullups or lifting bodyweight overhead) isn't helpful or fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry my posts have been off topic.

 

Being able to do one pull up is great for anyone so congrats on that. A lot of the women at the gym I go to can't do many(or any) pull ups so get someone to help and push up just enough on their legs to get them up. Doing this for awhile helps make no support pull ups easier. A friend of mine who used to work out with me couldn't do chin ups when we stated, so I got him to put one leg on a chair and use as little leg as he could and still get up. In a month he was doing full chin-ups with no chair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A definition of fit that excludes 99% of people(i.e 25 pullups or lifting bodyweight overhead) isn't helpful or fair.

 

You can't say "isn't helpful" or "isn't fair" about a definition. It's just a definition, and one amongst many definitions possible. I agree my definition doesn't cover up all possibilities but only one of them

 

In your second post, you,re right. Adaptation is the key. At first I was doing very few reps of everything, or lifting not heavy. But human body is an amazing machine that can adapt pretty quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A definition of fit that excludes 99% of people(i.e 25 pullups or lifting bodyweight overhead) isn't helpful or fair.

You can't say "isn't helpful" or "isn't fair" about a definition.

 

Yes I can and I did. Not only can I say it, it's a legitimate criticism as well. What's the point of such a silly definition? Words should be useful. Being able to do 25 pull ups is not a useful definition of fit. I'd never talk about fitness if that's what it meant. Fitness wouldn't even be an interest of mine.

 

Mods can we split this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BACK ON TOPIC!

 

Women generally do not have the same uppper body strength as men & the pull up is all about upper body so generally women would struggle with it.Especially if they are not practising it regularily.

 

I used to work in an old pub here in the UK which had huge solid wood beams going across the room.I could do around 15 pullups.No man I challenged to do it could beat it.It was because I had been doing it every day for weeks, they had not.

 

As for 25 - well that is pretty impressive! It does help if you are lean & strong like 'Im your man'

 

I have heard that pull-ups are a real test for 'functional strength' whatever that means..

 

Road to soy - the reason you can probably do them is because of the bar you had fitted when you were young.You activated that muscle group at an early age, plus you are clearly strong aswell!

 

Strong women rock! (but no biceps please )

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A definition of fit that excludes 99% of people(i.e 25 pullups or lifting bodyweight overhead) isn't helpful or fair.

You can't say "isn't helpful" or "isn't fair" about a definition.

 

Yes I can and I did. Not only can I say it, it's a legitimate criticism as well. What's the point of such a silly definition? Words should be useful. Being able to do 25 pull ups is not a useful definition of fit. I'd never talk about fitness if that's what it meant. Fitness wouldn't even be an interest of mine.

 

Mods can we split this?

 

Relax, this ain't a crisis or tragedy, no need to call the help of mods yet. It's just a conversation, can't we talk or do we have to agree on everything?

A good definition of a person being fit could be : a person who has achieved good physical abilities according to HIS OWN physical potential or almost reached 100% of his potential. Does this definition satisfy you ? Fitness is a very vague term, so it deserves a very vague definition that include all various levels of fitness. Someone on a wheel chair could be fit too, even if he ain't got all his body fonctional anymore; there's people on wheel chair that are bodybuilders and that can do 33 pull-ups, or olympic athletes on wheel chair doing the 100 meters in I don't know what time. Or a 3 years old boy could be "fit" for his age.

 

You criticize my definitions but you haven't provided a single one. If my previous definition excluded 99% of people to being fit, well I think it means it's an accurate definition, because when you thiink most people just drive their cars while eating their Big Mac and SuperSize Coke and can't do 10 push-ups.

 

If you want my opinion, being fit shouldn't be so vague. There's "fit" bodybuilders that bench 300lbs but they're not even able to lift their own bodyweight more than 5 times in a row. That's being fit in the gym but not outside of the gym, not in real life; and it's not really useful neighter: very low are the chances that some day in a lifetime someone needs to lift a truck because there's someone stucked under it. But it could happen that you have the time to grab something before falling from some place high, ; if you're not able to lift your body with your arms, you're dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and how many (pull-ups and chin-ups) can you do RoadtoSoy?

 

Humm not so many... like 3-4 pull ups if I'm not tired, I suppose.

I'm not really working on it right now, except lately i've given it a few occasional tries at the gym.

 

I really don't know how many chin-ups I can do (I might try it tonight at the gym, I'm intrigued!), didn't try to do a set of those since I was at school

I remember I used to be able to do lots of chin ups, got bored and switched to pull ups.

 

I guess that's kinda weird, I really trained on that bar when I was a kid until I was satisfied with my repittions. I had weird goals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relax, this ain't a crisis or tragedy, no need to call the help of mods yet. It's just a conversation, can't we talk or do we have to agree on everything?

A good definition of a person being fit could be : a person who has achieved good physical abilities according to HIS OWN physical potential or almost reached 100% of his potential. Does this definition satisfy you ? Fitness is a very vague term, so it deserves a very vague definition that include all various levels of fitness. Someone on a wheel chair could be fit too, even if he ain't got all his body fonctional anymore; there's people on wheel chair that are bodybuilders and that can do 33 pull-ups, or olympic athletes on wheel chair doing the 100 meters in I don't know what time. Or a 3 years old boy could be "fit" for his age.

 

You criticize my definitions but you haven't provided a single one. If my previous definition excluded 99% of people to being fit, well I think it means it's an accurate definition, because when you thiink most people just drive their cars while eating their Big Mac and SuperSize Coke and can't do 10 push-ups.

 

If you want my opinion, being fit shouldn't be so vague. There's "fit" bodybuilders that bench 300lbs but they're not even able to lift their own bodyweight more than 5 times in a row. That's being fit in the gym but not outside of the gym, not in real life; and it's not really useful neighter: very low are the chances that some day in a lifetime someone needs to lift a truck because there's someone stucked under it. But it could happen that you have the time to grab something before falling from some place high, ; if you're not able to lift your body with your arms, you're dead.

 

I am relaxed, it just makes sense to split this thread because we are off topic here...

 

Fitness is a vague term here, and I'm not sure that needs to change. My problem with how you have been defining fit, is it's so narrow to exclude most people. Neither you or I are fit according your definition. Such an exclusionary definition has many problems; like I said before it's not very useful if it only applies to 1 out of 10,000 people, or is simply a code word for 'can do 25 pull ups'. Besides it's elitist - fit is such a value-laden concept that defining it in such an elite is harmful. There is a lot of personal and social value in being fit. If you make being fit so hard that most could never achieve it you are doing real social harm(by reducing their social prestige) and personal harm(confidence, motivation, etc.)

 

Furthermore you last example is just kind of silly. a definition of fit should not be based on which hypothetical scenario is more likely(something we don't know anyways). Anyways I've never had to do a pull up outside of the gym. I left heavy stuff off the ground all the time outside of the gym.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fitness is not so "off-topic" on a thread about pull-ups and on a forum about bodybuilding and fitness.

If you think only 1 person out of a thousand is able to do at least 25 pull-ups you live on another planet. Of if you're right, then not a lot of people are in good shape. Why do you take for granted that being fit would mean the vast majority of people.

Neither you or I are fit according your definition

well, talk for yourself, I'm doing 30.

 

There is a lot of personal and social value in being fit. If you make being fit so hard that most could never achieve it you are doing real social harm(by reducing their social prestige) and personal harm(confidence, motivation, etc.)

I made a second definition, remember ? "a person who has achieved good physical abilities according to HIS OWN physical potential or almost reached 100% of his potential". That doesn't seem to me very harmful, it's rather very encouraging and motivates oneself to push his limits to his maximum and surpass himself.

But you seem to stick to my first definition as if you want to argue or try to prove something.

If you don't like my definition or find it "silly" and that you're so smart, make your own definitions.

 

Here's a definition (not mine, I just translated it from French) : The physical condition is composed mainly of the qualities of strength, speed, endurance, flexibility and coordination. To improve, the personal trainer must carry out training of 5 elements previously cited.

My definition of someone fit is when someone excel at all those 5 elements.

When a big guy with huge arms in a gym is able to lift the full rack of weight plates, but he's not even able to lift his own body or to run 30 seconds without getting out of breath, well that's not my vision of being fit. A guy like this may LOOK fit, or be semi-fit, fit in one aspect of fitness, but he's certainly not fit. The worker that goes to work every morning on a construction field doing manual labor may be more fit in general with more endurance than the big guy who would be tired after 1 hour of such work.

To me (I know you don't want to listen to my opinion WobbyLifter, but I'll tell it just to piss you off -- lol just kidding) Bruce Lee represent what we could define as true fitness and true power, excelling in all different types of forces. Of course now he's dead, but he was fit until the last day he lived. Not just a huge guy with arms so big that he's can't move them normally, or with too much lean mass that it's too heavy to lift his own bodyweight in pull-ups or move and run at same speed than a normal unfit person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think only 1 person out of a thousand is able to do at least 25 pull-ups you live on another planet.

You don't live on earth? I don't know a single person who can do at least 25 pull ups so I think 1 in 1000 isn't a bad guess

Neither you or I are fit according your definition

well, talk for yourself, I'm doing 30.

I meant neither of us was fit by your second definition(a person who has... almost reached 100% of his potential). Although honestly I don't believe you that you can do 30 pull ups and I'll only believe you can do a 30 rep set of pull ups after I see a video. And reading your long I never seen 30 pull ups listed either.

 

There is a lot of personal and social value in being fit. If you make being fit so hard that most could never achieve it you are doing real social harm(by reducing their social prestige) and personal harm(confidence, motivation, etc.)

I made a second definition, remember ? "a person who has achieved good physical abilities according to HIS OWN physical potential or almost reached 100% of his potential". That doesn't seem to me very harmful, it's rather very encouraging and motivates oneself to push his limits to his maximum and surpass himself.

But you seem to stick to my first definition as if you want to argue or try to prove something.

If you don't like my definition or find it "silly" and that you're so smart, make your own definitions.

 

Did you read what I said about the social value of being fit? That's why a definition of fit that excludes almost everyone is harmful. Most people can never achieve 100% physically, nor should they be expected to. I haven't offered a definition because the vague English definition is enough for me, no reason, no need to complicate it with silly criteria or unrealistic demands.

 

Here's a definition (not mine, I just translated it from French) : The physical condition is composed mainly of the qualities of strength, speed, endurance, flexibility and coordination. To improve, the personal trainer must carry out training of 5 elements previously cited.

My definition of someone fit is when someone excel at all those 5 elements.

 

Now that's a decent defintion, although I'd say 'good' rather then excel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...