I first saw an example of the butterfly kip (BFK) about a year ago while perusing some videos of AFT. At first I was incredulous about the movements’ legitimacy. The problem was, I could not DO the BFK so I had an opinion but no real experience on the matter. Said another way, I was full of shit. This was similar to what I see from the folks who CAN NOT DO or COACH the Olympic lifts…for these folks the OL’s are dangerous, in-effective and slow to implement. Yea, ok.
Well, I finally got around to learning the BFK and it is both fun and dramatically more efficient than the standard kip which I feel like I’ve refined pretty well given I’ve done 62 pull ups this way. My BFK is not near this yet but I think it has potential due to the ability to store elastic energy in the movement. In essence one never really comes to a stop position…you never have a full change of direction and one can thus string movements together in a very efficient, flowing way. Here is an interesting thing however: the BFK will not work for someone who is relatively weak or with a significant load. For this I suspect the default will be the gymnastics style mini-glide kip. This is a fairly easy experiment to run. Can you BFK with a 20lb vest on? 40lb? What do you do for a 1RM weighted pull-up? It’s not going to be the BFK, but that’s not a problem, different movement for a different situation. I see a similar situation with movements like the push press (PP) and push jerk (PJ). The standard 1RM approach to the PP & PJ is to keep a perfectly upright torso and drive through the heels and this is without a doubt the most efficient way to produce maximum force…but if the load is relatively low one can (in my opinion) improve total work output but driving off the balls of the feet…due to stored elastic energy. This is how we box-jump, double under, triple jump and a host of other athletic moves which benefit from stored elastic energy.
I’ve been thinking about some way to look at movements and how to determine which derivative is the best. I REALLY like rang of movement as a criteria. This places the sumo-deadlift and squat in pretty questionable terms. Some thought of dimensionality or path dependence is helpful I think. A solid athletic style squatter (ass to ankles) can do a sumo squat with little to no preparation, whereas the opposite is rarely if ever the case. The kipped pull up is a similar case whatever variety you use…get that and you can still dead hang, but it’s a skill which needs to be learned & practiced. Beyond this I think movements might be sub divided into max-effort formats and high repetition formats, the high rep formats benefiting from some kind of stored elastic energy.
Thoughts?
Josh Everett, Danny Wright and I were just talking about the BFK this morning. I like it as a variation to a more traditional kip, but I maintain that it’s not a good replacement. As Josh said, if the idea of CF is to improve work capacity, isn’t it backwards to reduce the work of a given movement? Similarly, without having actually timed and compared, it appears to me with casual observation that a strong individual (e.g. Josh) is capable of performing a traditional kip faster than a BFK (based on comparing Josh or even my fat self with a more traditional but stripped-down (i.e. straighter line) kip to the BFK by Spealer and Mike G). Does that mean the BFK is not legit? Not at all – I just think it should be considered its own distinct exercise. This of course also gets into the area of evaluating a movement’s usefulness in the context of real life – when would such a movement be used (or be possible for that matter)? Granted, similar arguments for a kip with its forward swing may be made, but it’s more likely a good kipper can straighten his/her kip out quite easily to overcome obstacles like a wall, for example, that prevent a significant forward swing. So I think you’re right that a division based on purpose/goals is necessary; even more specifically in this case, I’m reluctant to make a straight comparison to a BFK and trad kip because, despite similar displacements, the amount of energy being used is quite different – so in other words, the BFKer with a faster time for a given number of pull-ups has not actually improved his power output or work capacity – he’s found a different method of moving.
On another note, all PP, PJ and Js are off the balls of the feet… The CoP is forward of the CoM (just in front of the heel – same is in the sn and cln). It should remain maximally efficient in any circumstances to maintain a vertical torso because that minimizes horizontal bar and body mass displacement.
Good Stuff Greg. I see the trad kip offering more avenues of advancement with things like muscle-ups and stuff like that. I have to say, even at my spanky level of BFK development it is SO much more efficient it’s tough to do a regular kip in a WOD like Fran. Defenitely a place where function and fitness may part paths.
With the PP & PJ I’m thinking that the individual is actually in a heel raised position for the very high rep, rapid cycle time scenario. Almost like jumping in place but with most of the vertical displacement going into the bar instead of the person…does this make sense or has the Chico heat baked my brain?
Robb
Baked. Or I’m not getting what you mean. ALL PP, PJ, Js will finish with the CoP on the balls of the feet and heel off the deck – the real issue is where the CoM is. The big mistake is allowing it to move wherever the CoP is (which shifts the whole system forward and fudges everything up). Of course having the CoP and CoM in different places is only possible while moving (and relatively quickly). Am I missing something?
I think so. Light load, heel “never” touches the deck…think double under or box jump vs driving through the heels on a max DL or back SQT. I know the COM is actually forward of the heel…but it’s a vast difference here in never or rarely making heel contact vs intentionally driving the heel into the ground. In the scenario I’m thinking about, something like a Fight Gone Bad, the cycle rate should be much higher if the individual is strong AND stays on the toes. This would seem to be at odds the the standard coaching, assuming I’m right about this.
Robb
I agree with both of you that both the kipping and BFK are difficult to compare because the work capacity and movement differ so much. I also agree with the fact that they both are their own functional movement. One thing I want to point out that is very basic, which simply is, what is the goal of the exercise? Both movements generate the same end point but only in different capacities. In Grace it doesn’t matter how you get the load over head, just which it is over head. A straight up and down pull up has the same objective but the movement and capacity is different than both the BFK and kipping but as a community we accept them as the same exercise.
Chris-
I like it. It will be interesting to see is any formalized approach comes of this. l think the main standard offered at this point is Force x distance= work. Factor in time and we are talking power. The convention is that moving from the bottom of the pull-up to the top is the only factor for work, number of cycles per unit time is the only factor for average power. What I’m unsure about is how to factor in changes in stored elastic energy…work appears to remain the same (same vertical displacement) while average power appear to increase…but the metabolic cost is experiencially VERY different! I can turn a dead hang pull-up into a more energy efficient movement by using no hip drive but actively pulling myself under the bar, effectively storing elastic energy in the shoulders and really upping my work output on paper. I’ve done the same thing with the BFK by using NO leg drive but simply making the movement circular. Stored elastic energy moves my center of mass a LONG way but at less energy cost vs a dead-hang or standard kipped pull-up.
I guess this could be likened to different running technique…POSE vs the archaic heel centric technique every fucking runner in Chico, CA appears to employ. Perhaps I should be less concerned with defining the terms and a level playing field and just get all my kips monstrously efficient!
Robb
Hmmmm. I’d say that if the individual is remaining on the toes, even slightly, he/she is robbing him/herself of potential power and making the thing harder. Aside from simply being tiring in the local muscular endurance sense, the ankle extension and return to heel in a PP acts as a miniature jerk – that is, we get more distance between the body and bar without actually driving the bar any higher. I guess I don’t see an advantage to remaining on the balls of the feet – I think if it’s happening, it’s simply an error in balance/technique rather than an indicator that it’s more efficient.
Considering the double under and box jump comparisons, I see different basic movements. Box jumps done very rapidly resemble double unders in that most of the elevation is accomplished with ankle extension rather than knee extension. I suppose I can see mimicking that with a very light PP/PJ load and basically bouncing it off the shoulders rather than actually driving it, but I think the movement will be more stable and consequently lend itself better to the development and maintenance of the rhythm necessary for rapid cycling. Something to experiment with I guess and get a better idea of what’s actually happening.
“I like it. It will be interesting to see is any formalized approach comes of this. l think the main standard offered at this point is Force x distance= work. Factor in time and we are talking power. The convention is that moving from the bottom of the pull-up to the top is the only factor for work, number of cycles per unit time is the only factor for average power. What I’m unsure about is how to factor in changes in stored elastic energy…work appears to remain the same (same vertical displacement) while average power appear to increase…but the metabolic cost is experiencially VERY different! I can turn a dead hang pull-up into a more energy efficient movement by using no hip drive but actively pulling myself under the bar, effectively storing elastic energy in the shoulders and really upping my work output on paper. I’ve done the same thing with the BFK by using NO leg drive but simply making the movement circular. Stored elastic energy moves my center of mass a LONG way but at less energy cost vs a dead-hang or standard kipped pull-up.
I guess this could be likened to different running technique…POSE vs the archaic heel centric technique every fucking runner in Chico, CA appears to employ. Perhaps I should be less concerned with defining the terms and a level playing field and just get all my kips monstrously efficient!”
Hmmm, stuff like high jump, long jump and other track and field events are very dependent off of the stretch-shorten cycle for development of the superior power needed to perform at an elite level in these specific events. I don’t think utilizing it specifically is “cheating” in any way in particularly although it may lessen the value of work you can perform for a movement.
The main key here is the results. Metabolically, you say that with an efficient BFK is less taxing overall in a workout? What happens when you coming it with the thrusters in Fran? Does it still amount to a less metabolic workout as compared to ‘regular’ kipping pullups?
Well, my illustration is 30 MUs in particular and I’m sure you’ve heard it before but metabolically doing 30 kipping pullups with non-full extension (arms slightly bent at the bottom) was more metabolically taxing than doing 30 MUs with full extension.. this was, consequently, more metabolically taxing than doing 30 deadhang muscle ups (times being 2:24, 2:57 & 5:40 respectively). Now, the difference in time here it seems is enough to make up for the fact that I seemed to be doing “less” work in the latter few workouts respectively, but I got a better metcon result out of it.
Steven-
My Fran with BFK was MUCH less taxing than regular and only 5 seconds slower at this point, despite significant time spent hanging and flailing about! I can see how a lack of lock-out might increase the demands of something like 30MU. that lock-out will increase the ROM, but also allow a brief rest at the top.
Robb
Robb, multiple vectors in this post! 1) BFK vs. trad swing kip, 2) how to evaluate movements with several possible criteria or taxonomies.
I don’t think it’s kosher to call all of these movements which translate momentum from one direction to another as instances of elastic energy. I think elastic energy is only relevant when a muscle (or god forbid a connective tissue, possibly a bone; elastic energy can result from the isometric hold & pressure of valsalva, or even bouncing a bench press off the sternum, no…?) is stretched and part of the force it exerts is coming from the flexibility inherent in the material — in this case muscle fiber. For functional exercises, how often is elastic energy used aside from the bottom of the squat? For plyometric motions, even, I think the term “elastic” used so promiscuously (universally?) is metaphorical, and not literally elastic: the store of energy in muscle fibers that are already contracted derives from the strength of the isometric hold, and not the muscle fiber itself.
But back to kips. The traditional swing kip uses the full body in swing; my thought on the butterfly kip is that it also transfers rotational energy back upwards — but the rotation is coming entirely from cycling the legs, instead of swinging the whole body.
In which case, your clyclical kip not using the legs — you’re driving that whole cyclical motion with just your arms? Congrats on being such a monster, and diligent too. It bears no relation to how I’m doing the BFK. When my juju is just right, I’m driving almost the entire cycle with nothing but my legs!
Unlike the traditional whole body kip, you can use a supine grip with the butterfly kip. Combine this with the powerful leg-cycle that drives the return… and ‘float like a butterfly.’
* * Um, tying both of those together — it’s true the body has a lot of potential energy when you’re at the top, in virtue of gravity that we worked against when we put the body up there. But — the kick cycle going downward is not even using that potential energy, methinks. The feet just don’t have enough mass, especially relative to the body, for it to be relevant. All the energy driving the BFK is coming from cycling the legs through a small-radius swing at the bottom.
AHHH, Yes, better use of terms. Rotational energy, not necessarily elastic! Both kips, even the kip up from the ground, all use cheap, easy movement in one plane, introducing a rapid direction change via the hips typically and this is what minimizes the upper body involvement. I think the fully straight body, feet together, no donkey kick in the back of the movement (like Speals’ recent fran) is the ubber refinement of this scenario but my spanky attempts at the move are simply a less refined version at present.
So…I think the improved efficiency of the BFK is that the legs are the main moving part, vs the entire upper body of the trad kip?
Robb
Oh, the lack of extension is at the bottom of the movement (pullup portion). The top (dip) is taken to full lock every time.
—————-
Kirez makes a good point though:
The ‘traditional’ arch-hollow kipping movement tends to use horizontal rock motion and the shoulder girdle is what is driving all of the upward force aside from maybe a small bit of abs movement.
BFK does utilize the abs and hip flexors mainly (not necessarily the legs).. for the most part fairly extensively to drive the body upwards.
In light of that, interestingly if you haven’t seen the L-kip muscle up variation I detailed here:
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6992/lkipmuym9.png
It uses the abs and hip flexor work (holding the L-position in the bottom of the movement) to swing/drive the transition through to completion. This is the type of kip I utilized to hit that 2:24 and 2:57 time respectively. It greatly reduces the amount of “work” you have to do.
I actually haven’t done any BFKing myself so next time I go to a pullup bar I’ll check it out. Comparatively, from what I’ve seen of a good hollow-arch kip, the elasticity from the arch part of the movement is fairly well conserved.. but maybe not as good as BFK.
First of all, Robb thank you for encouraging informed discussion and analysis of new movements/exercises rather than judgments or opinions.
To specifically answer your questions/comments…
I’ve been thinking about some way to look at movements and how to determine which derivative is the best. I REALLY like rang of movement as a criteria.
Me too, what I have come to use is context (who am I dealing with and what condition is their body in), then safety (inherent safety of the movement and then can the athlete actually do the movement safely), then adaptation. For instance, if someone has reduced ROM in hips or shoulders that is going to help me decide if the exercise is safe for the athlete. Some movements may not be safe for any athlete, some will be safe for some athletes but certain derivatives, while maybe more effective methods of increasing power, won’t be safe before full ROM is achieved. As strength coaches, we live, for the most part, in the practice side of the practice-performance spectrum, so we should always consider the adaptation we are seeking rather than which derivative is best. Ideally, our athletes should be analogous to master carpenters, with a full set of physical tools, along with the knowledge and ability of how adapt their tool set, to apply to the various challenges in the performance arena. Which is probably what you are getting at in your comment:
“Beyond this I think movements might be sub divided into max-effort formats and high repetition formats, the high rep formats benefiting from some kind of stored elastic energy”.
I would probably amend your statement in the following way: the most effective for performance are those that benefit from stored elastic energy.
From the videos I have seen of both standard kipping and BFK, I would say that it is the rapid hip flexion that creates the rotational/horizontal energy. So I think it the trajectory/path that we use the stored elastic energy generated by actively flexing and extending our hips that leads to the superior efficiency of the BFK (think sine wave vs. circle). Finally, my experience has been the BFK’s are easier on the hands which makes them very effective for doing a high volume of pull-ups in not only a workout but also in micro-cycle.
To answer Kirez’ question, “for functional exercises, how often is elastic energy used aside from the bottom of the squat?” Any movement that requires torsional separation of upper and lower body (e.g. running, throwing, skiing, skating, swimming, martial arts, etc.) benefits from using stored elastic energy effectively. Watch World Cup skiing or any national level sprinting event to see what I mean. Or better yet, check out this article regarding the pitching mechanics of Roger Clemens (http://www.chrisoleary.com/projects/Baseball/Pitching/RethinkingPitching/Essays/ProperPitchingMechanics_RogerClemens.html). In particular, in this image (http://www.chrisoleary.com/projects/Baseball/Pitching/Images/Pitchers/RogerClemens/RogerClemens_2000_001.jpg) notice how far his hips are rotated forward relative to his throwing arm.
“…notice that in Frame 45 Roger Clemens’ hips are rotating ahead of his shoulders. This stretches the muscles of his upper legs, hips, and lower torso (aka the “core”) and will enable them to powerfully pull his shoulders around. In other words, this enables Roger Clemens to throw the ball with his entire body, and not just his arm.”
Thanks again for your excellent post.
saulj
Saul! Great to see you at the NorCal Open! Awesome thoughts on this thread.
Robb
Just wanted to add a couple things i’ve noticed in my experience with the BFK versus traditional CF kip (glide kip?). I have found that the BFK is a fair bit more grip intensive than either a dead hang or regular kip. To the point that, thus far, my ability to do large numbers of them is limited as much by my finger strength than anything else.(especially when its paired with something like kettlebell swings i.e. Helen) i chalked it up to the extra downward momentum at the bottom of the rotation increasing the load substantially for a split second. Does that make sense?
Also I get blisters from the traditional kip because my hands twist around the bar but not from BFKs as the load seems more up/down at my hands.
Small details for sure but im curious what you all think.
Dylan-
We have all noticed a change in where we feel the kip in our hands AND it has really torched me in the back and traps…just a totally different movement pattern.
Robb
– it’s all good that we are analyzing it…good for CF, good for kipping/performance….
– AFT brought it to life into CF due to his swim background, dude can co-ordinate action from hips to upper like no one else i’ve seen
– we’ve taught different stlyes and it IS based as one person said on 1. co-ordination and 2. relative strength/weight ratio…
– one thing i’d like to throw into the mix is the fact that some that are still doing some what of a traditional kip can still out muster those that are doing the butterfly…so does it really matter if it is more efficient for max pull ups for 1 set or for 45 reps in a couplet….? let’s look at Josh Everett’s weight x 125 reps of pull ups in last years games….then Brett’s weight (35-40 lbs less than Josh at the time) x 125 reps and i believe Brett won by ONLY 1 min over Josh…don’t get calculators out but it’s more about the machine driving the engine…not the efficiency that gets you points…
– this goes back to Greg E’s article on evaluation of CF movements…i’m not sure i agree with “decreasing the work” of a given movement…as the goal if CF is your sport is to do just exactly that. As i say to atletes that we teach O-lifts to and gymanstics…we don’t want you to be the best lifter or gymnast, we want physiological outcomes from it to carry over to sport….to CF athletes we teach, we ensure we find the methods they can use to make the movement as EASY as possible, measured over and over with numbers (believe me we have a lot of them), even if that is BFK or kipping…and to recap, some of those folks using trad kip…and this is the key here….WHEN MIXED WITH OTHER MOVEMENTS…as is done in CF as a sport…it makes both movements relatively similar…i.e. 5 rounds of 30 pull ups/30 SDLHP – 95 lbs/30 thrusters – 95 lbs can yield similar results as work capacity is the key to winning this one
– sidenote, i personally have found BFK more grip dominant as well so WOD’s that call for 45-80ish pull ups total are BFK style and WOD’s 120+ pull ups are a mixture for pacing purposes…that is depending on what it is mixed with..until that is Brett comes up with another syle using only 2 fingers on the bar, then we’ll argue that one as well…he does only have 9 fingers you know….maybe that’s the key???? i just figured it out, where’s the saw
OPT-
This would make a great book title “9 fingers to CrossFit Dominance”.
Is it being overly simplistic here to simply say “get wickedly good at both styles”?
Robb
greg, why, if the bfk Is faster, is the power output not higher?
dutch.
Dutch-
I’m thinking that if we get efficient enough at this the net power output goes down since we are storing movement energy along the way…still pondering this however as it seems like we are looking down our nose at efficiency….maybe Greg will have some insight on this.
Robb
Dutch –
If the BFK is faster, the power output is greater – I was saying that from what I’ve seen the BFK appears slightly slower than a trad kip, because that trad kip can be performed with less horizontal movement and accelerated better in both directions (again, this is based on casual observation, and I may not be correct here). But I also added that I’m not convinced it requires as much energy to perform a BFK within a cycle than a more trad kip – in other words, if we measure work performed and compare it to energy required to create the movement, the BFK and trad kip should have essentially the same work because the end points are the same, but I think (again, just a guess based on very little actual consideration) the BFK requires less energy. So the BFK is more efficient when considering only the start and end points.
OPT –
I agree completely that we want to make our movements as efficient as possible – not doing so is silly (like the old man says, work smarter, not harder). But my comments speak more to my wondering if we can consider the two pull-ups variations of the same exercise, or if they should be considered distinct. If the latter is true, than it’s not more efficient, it’s a totally different thing. For example, if I can say a snatch is more efficient than a clean & jerk, but it’s a bit of an apples/oranges deal. Of course, the difference between a BFK and trad kip is a lot more subtle than that between a snatch and CJ, and that’s why I haven’t made up my mind one way or another.
But that’s a different issue than the work capacity one. We have two basic goals – to increase work capacity and to develop more economical technique. We use these two traits together to accomplish our objectives, but they’re not the same, and in a sense are at odds with each other.
I suppose part of the problem is that when I think of work capacity, I’m considering the actual energy use of the body as well as the work done on an external object or body. So I want the body to be able to expend more energy in a given period (usefully, of course) as well as know what movements can be used to best accomplish a given task with as little energy cost as possible. I don’t know if I’m explaining this well. So an example might be as such: An individual is tasked with doing 100 pull-ups as quickly as possible. But there’s a wall directly in front of the bar that prevents the use of the BFK, which we would prefer using due to its greater efficiency. The individual is forced to use the less efficient trad kip with a more vertical descent. I want him/her to perform well in this situation too – that is, i want him/her to possess the ability to do the harder work as well as perform tasks in easier manners. Does that make any sense at all, or do I need to quit smoking crack again?
I started BFKing a few years ago out of necessity when I participated in “Eugene Allen’s 50 pull ups birthday challenge” (Were a bunch of us all tried to get 50 consecutive pull ups on Eugene’s 50th birthday). Most of my training was on rings in my backyard hung in a tree with about 20 feet of clearance. Needless to say, as my daily average got up into the 150 rep range, the BFK is what pulled me through. I ended up doing 54 on his birthday (Nov of 05 I believe) and subsequently was sick of pull ups for about a year.
I never made the connection that this was even a different kind of pull up. I gave the video to Gene for his birthday and both of us commented on how ‘weird’ the kip was. I never thought much of it. For the most part when I was on a straight bar I would do regular pull ups, BFK (although it didn’t have a name) on the rings. Every once in a while I would the BFK on a straight bar, but I was always worried about knocking my teeth out again (something I have done recently enough outside the gym, not doing pull ups), so I avoided them when I got fatigued.
If you have enough shoulder flexibility, I believe that the rings can actually make it easier. Your head and shoulders will pass through the rings and allow you to fall forward – creating a much more circular path for your COM, and saving energy. If done properly, I think there is even less of a grip function because there is no hard stop, but more of a swing. Similar to trapeze work and jumping on the monkey bars. Interestingly, I have never had the slightest problem with my shoulders or elbow pain from pull ups. I believe it is a direct result from doing all those pull ups on the rings demanding flexibility and strength through a greater ROM, especially when ‘falling in the hole’.
If you want to have fun, try doing the BFK on the rings. You will develop a new appreciation for them.
All that being said. I don’t know how to address the work issue. My gut instinct is to say ‘Who cares? Use whatever technique that gets you the best performance unless otherwise specified.’ If we are going to make power as a function of reps and time, and you can do more reps as fast or faster this way. . . The historical CF absolute says “Do It”.
Does this change the benchmarks? Maybe. But that is why we have benchmarks. So we know what gets us better times. Are the benchmarks perfect? No, but they work well enough. The current benchmarks might need to be more defined to keep techniques consistent. As with any type of competition, people will find a way to get better scores – whether it is a new kip, an aerodynamic suit, amputating a limb to cut weight. . .
All this discussion reminds me of what one of my trainers (a phenom named Josh Jorgensen) calls “Gravity Grace” (we should be posting a video some time soon). Let’s just say that it involves a lot “Conserving Energy” with the right kind of bumpers on the right kind of floor.
JJ-
Good words. I think we are onto a similar Gravity Grace. Gotta love the old RB rubber plates.
Robb
-jj
Robb – try this – I had guys get good at bfk in 10 mins once I figured out this progression:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kEUxEo5_7hY
And the jerks off the balls of the feet – I found some Russian/soviet manuals that teach it – and it works great for me. Ever since then my jerks sprinted way ahead of my cleans.
In this vid in the end all jerks are done off the balls of the feet:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QRbI_JcvgbQ
Torso is upright, drive is straight, no stability problems.
I teach the normal way, but myself – prefer this way by far.
Leo-
This is awesome! Thanks Brother!
Robb
I have recently learned the BFK and there is no doubt it is a more efficient movement for me. We have quite a lot of athletes now at Crossfit Vancouver that do the BFK and we timed our best butterfly kipper(Remington) against our fastest traditional kip (Popeye) and the BFK was a split second faster to 10 reps and it should be noted that Popeyes traditional kipping pullups are as fast as anyone I have ever scene (He is a 150# and does very little frontal motion on the kip so its a very linear movement).
Anyways I am excited to add the BFK to my arsenal and I think its just another movement in crossfit that is fun to learn and do.
Excuse my ignorance here fellas, but I feel like this is the forum to ask such a question.
Here goes: Why does CrossFit advocate any type of kipping technique? Can anyone point me towards a CFJ that talks about the physics when comparing a traditional kip to a traditional pull-up?
I guess I just assume that a CFer would want to practice a trad pull-up until they can be as efficient or more when using a kip.
Great discussion. Nice to see some of the “big players” having a debate!
Zach-
This has been the subject of EPIC debates in the past and it comes down to this: with a kip one can do more work in less time this means greater average power…average power IS a direct representation of intensity…and intensity is the thing that optimizes the rate of return on favorable adaptations (to heavily quote Coach Glassman).
That is some of the theory, in practice a kip one can improve dead hang pull-ups AND kipped pull-ups, but without the kip one is trapped with only the dead hang. There is a perfect analogy here with the standing press vs the push press. We can develop crushing levels of strength with the push press AND create a significant metabolic component, not so the standing press.
That’s my take on it…there have been a few CFJ’s devoted tot he topic and epic discussions on the message board…you might give that a perusal.
Robb
Leo –
Your jerks are the “normal” way… There is no debate regarding the fact that the final drive places the center of pressure there – the question here was whether it was desirable to never replace the heels on the deck during a series of consecutive jerks, which would be a different story because it would move the center of mass forward unavoidably.
I spent the weekend at the Colorado State patrol cert and it just so happens that they have these pullup bars that are at most 2 feet away from the wall. This creates the problem Greg was talking about. Both Speal and i did a couple pullups both regular kip and BFK. Although, not easy, both were doable. We concurred that we just didn’t want to do pullups on something like that. I guess in hind sight that is pretty closed minded but they were really hard…Obviously that speaks to the need to implement something like that into training.
My point is that both were doable. This may be becasue we are crazy short or could speak to the true functionality of both movements. In reality if a pullup is going from full extension to chin over the bar what difference does it make if you are doing a regular kip, BFK or jumping pullup from the ground. None of these allow you to do any less work. They do, however, cause you to use different muscles to accomplish the same amount of work.
I like the BFK and since doing it, about a year ago, i have done a pretty good mix of both. The regular kip helps me reset my rhythm if i get going to fast. I will try to get some video tomorrow of a comparison between the two. I am not so sure that the two are equal in time requirements.
Dutch-
Good stuff. I remember those pull up bars and they suck. I think as one fatigues the need for a larger kip (more energy generation in the horizontal plane) becomes ever more critical. I’d love to see that time comparison on your kips!
Robb
Greg – I see. Good point.
I just myself prefer to always drive through the balls of my feet. My heels have very little pressure on them during even the heaviest jerks.
I can drive through the heels but it’s weaker.
We’ve timed our best glide-kippers (max reps in the 60 range), taught them the BF kip, very rudimentary, very ugly, and at lower rep ranges (10-20) they’ve blown their glide-kip times away, often to the order of 5 seconds (5 second differences on a set of 15 are pretty huge!).
And this is without very efficient BF kip technique at this point.
Now, of course, these guys, being very new to the BF kip, fall apart when the number of reps get higher than 15-20. And thus, this whole issue, as others have already said, speaks mostly to efficiency in movement and energy conservation, in my opinion.
Robb,
I made the videos yesterday. On a twenty rep cycle, i cut 6-7 seconds off the traditional kip. I even tried to shorten the trad. kip. I uploaded it to the Crossfit server so Tony has it. Badger him a bit and i bet it makes the main site provided the range of motion is ok to him.
I think i am pretty efficient in both kips so the results speak for themselves…
right on Dutch!
Robb
Leo –
What’s your heaviest jerk to date? The weight will shift to the balls of the feet immediately as you begin to dip – again, though, the issue is not CoP but CoM.
120 kilos. 115 kilos c&j. I haven’t jerked heavy in about 6 weeks or so – since starting to prep for the Southeast CF challenge.
What’s COP?
COM is center of mass I assume.
Great thread. How about an update on your development w/the butterfly pullup? Also, I love the kipping pullup you did. Helped me a lot. Can you please do a butterfly kip video too? You are very insightful with your teachings. A butterfly video from you would be so appreciated from us!
Thanks,
Jack
Jack-
I never liked the mechanics of the butterfly PU. I think soem otehr folks have tinkered with this far more than me.