Page 1 of 2

adding weight to dips/pullups

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:18 am
by leif3141
Any suggestions? Right now I just have a bookbag which I stick some barbells in...the problem is any more than like 30 pounds and i feel like the straps are going to tear off.

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:31 am
by Ironman
You need one of those belts with the chain where you can attach standard weight plates.

I'm not saying this is the best deal, but here is what it looks like.

http://www.bigfitness.com/leatherdipbelt.html

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:47 am
by TimD
I just use a chain dog leash that I use on my dogs. Just run the hook end through the holes in the plates and wrap it around your waist.
Tim

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:03 pm
by George G
I hold a dumbbell between my knees or between my feet. I have not tried this with more than 25lbs, but I am sure it will work.

Extra bonus: abs have to work harder.

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:43 am
by leif3141
hey thanks guys...i might try a home remedy before i spend $50 on one of those dip belts...course it looked useful, so who knows.

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:27 am
by Bikerbill98
Are you using added weight because you can already easily do 20 chinups and 50 dips?

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:08 am
by Matt Z
Where did you get 20 chin-ups and 50 dips from? If your doing that many reps per set it's practically cardio. Unless your training for stregth-endurance (for rock climbing perhaps) your probably better off doing fewer reps with more resistance. For example sets of 8-12 reps for mass, and fewer reps for stregth.

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:33 am
by TimD
I have no idea where he got those numbers from, but I do know that a lot of strength coaches (for athletics) advise being able to do about 20 P bar dips w/bodyweight before weighting-reasoning being getting the depth and motion down so that you don't weight yourself up too heavy and blow out the shoulders. I love dips, and have been doing them for years, but ifyou go too deep, and slam into the bottom, you are putting your shoulders at risk.
Tim

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:58 am
by Bikerbill98
My point regarding pullups and dips is if you can do such you are strong for your weight because it takes greater overall strength to do such than pulling yourself up five times with added weight. From a functional stand point, the rock climber is stronger. Of course, this really isn't the issue; leif3141 obviously needs a heavy duty bookbag. ;)

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:20 pm
by Matt Z
Yor talking about two different types of strength. Rock climbers may have good high-rep stregth, but this doesn't neccissarily mean they have good low-rep stregth. Meanwhile, most good climbers are very light, so while they may be very strong pound-for-pound, in absolute terms they aren't very impressive.

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:35 pm
by Matt Z
IMHO relative stregth and absolute stregth are both functional. In rock climbing relative streght is all that matters, since you only have to lift your own bodyweight (plus your clothing of course and perhaps small amout of gear). However, if your moving a couch all that matters is whether or not you can lift it. It doesn't matter if you weight 100 pounds or 200 pounds, the couch still weight the same.

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:56 pm
by Ironman
I agree with Matt, that many reps is a waste of time. You should have good form on the dip and pull up before you use them in your workout anyway. The ultra high reps are not argued for most things at all, because we know it doesn't work. For some reason bodyweight, calves and abs are somehow magic and they are able to defy all physical laws. The law seems to be that time under tension and progressive overload and such don't apply to calves and abs, but they do apply to all the other muscles. Then of course if your body weight is involved, these laws don't apply to ANY muscle. Except squats of course, unless you do them with 1 leg of course. Partial body weight does not count of course as bench dips require weight but p-bar doesn't. Abs are body weight, so are they magic themselves or do they gain magic status from bodyweight? Calves have to be magic on their own, because while the standing calf can get magic status from bodyweight, seated and press machines still have magic status which must come from the calves themselves. This appears to hold true for the soleus, the gastrocs and even that one on the front. In fact the whole lower leg appears to be completely magic. Could it be that the because you walk around on it all day, it absorbs all that body weight and that is what makes it magic? I think it must be, therefore we can simplify all this by saying that bodyweight must be magic. I'm afraid I missed this lesson of Catholic dogma exercise when I was in Catholic school. Maybe I was sick, or the nuns forgot. They were pretty old you know.

Brother Maynard, bring out the holy book of exercise!

"Holy book of exercise, chapter 1 verse 1
And yea the Lord did speak, bless this oh bodyweight, that we may do ye all day. That we may buildeth thy muscles by doing it many times. Thy muscle shall become so absolutely huge, With the strength of 1000 orannutans. So that thou may smite thy enemies with the wrath of God and smash them to tiny little bits."
"Amen"

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:00 pm
by Ironman
Yea, it does take a lot of strength to move some coaches. Take Tommy Lasorda for example! That's a two man job for sure, I don't care who you are! :)

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:28 pm
by Matt Z
:-)

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:00 pm
by Matt Z
For those who don't get the joke, I initially wrote coach instead of couch.