Adarq.org
Performance Area => Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion => Topic started by: fast does lie on January 07, 2011, 05:02:12 am
-
For a beginner looking to increase explosiveness, would it be better to be top heavy or bottom heavy starting out?
-
For a beginner looking to increase explosiveness, would it be better to be top heavy or bottom heavy starting out?
What?
-
For a beginner looking to increase explosiveness, would it be better to be top heavy or bottom heavy starting out?
What?
I have no idea. I like both a big butt and big breasts so I think both.
-
you cant change where you store fat, so it doesnt matter whats "better"
-
you cant change where you store fat, so it doesnt matter whats "better"
Yeah what he's saying is really weird. And "better" for what anyway?
If anything, a lower center of mass is worse for jumping than a higher center of mass but whatever :ninja:
-
For a person that has excess body fat, is it more advantageous to be top heavy or bottom heavy when starting out?
Example: Person A and person b are both fatass with 30% body fat.
A is top heavy, b is bottom heavy. Who will make better progress based on given info.
What the fuck are you talking about? Progress on what? What info do you think you've provided there? Wait, wait, sorry, I've got it. Bottom heavy. No, wait, top heavy. Definitely top heavy, because once they start lifting weights, the top-heavy persons legs will have been stronger to begin with because they're farther from the ground, so their legs had to fight gravity more. Definitely that.
-
For a person that has excess body fat, is it more advantageous to be top heavy or bottom heavy when starting out?
Example: Person A and person b are both fatass with 30% body fat.
A is top heavy, b is bottom heavy. Who will make better progress based on given info.
What the fuck are you talking about? Progress on what? What info do you think you've provided there? Wait, wait, sorry, I've got it. Bottom heavy. No, wait, top heavy. Definitely top heavy, because once they start lifting weights, the top-heavy persons legs will have been stronger to begin with because they're farther from the ground, so their legs had to fight gravity more. Definitely that.
Ah, that makes perfect sense.
:ninja:
-
For a person that has excess body fat, is it more advantageous to be top heavy or bottom heavy when starting out?
Example: Person A and person b are both fatass with 30% body fat.
A is top heavy, b is bottom heavy. Who will make better progress based on given info.
What the fuck are you talking about? Progress on what? What info do you think you've provided there? Wait, wait, sorry, I've got it. Bottom heavy. No, wait, top heavy. Definitely top heavy, because once they start lifting weights, the top-heavy persons legs will have been stronger to begin with because they're farther from the ground, so their legs had to fight gravity more. Definitely that.
lol, I wasted 1/4 of a protein shake on the floor when I saw this btw
-
For a person that has excess body fat, is it more advantageous to be top heavy or bottom heavy when starting out?
Example: Person A and person b are both fatass with 30% body fat.
A is top heavy, b is bottom heavy. Who will make better progress based on given info.
What the fuck are you talking about? Progress on what? What info do you think you've provided there? Wait, wait, sorry, I've got it. Bottom heavy. No, wait, top heavy. Definitely top heavy, because once they start lifting weights, the top-heavy persons legs will have been stronger to begin with because they're farther from the ground, so their legs had to fight gravity more. Definitely that.
lol, I wasted 1/4 of a protein shake on the floor when I saw this btw
So if we want to sabotage Lance from now on, we have to make sure we send stupid PMs to him and flood him. Guaranteed he's losing weight if we do it. :ibjumping:
-
Person B, because of the increased leverage a higher center of gravity provides. That is - if they have the same structure, Person B will jump higher. But since you're saying they have the same VJ, that means they don't have the same structure so Person A will probably respond better to the fat loss.
But this is HIGHLY theoretical and you shouldn't ever worry about that since there are SOOO many other things to consider.
-
bottom heavy
(http://www.waisthipsandthighs.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pear-shaped-body.jpg)
can't do anything about where your fat is stored, so regardless of whether you are top heavy or bottom heavy, it has to come off if you want peak performance.. that said, having fat on 'top' would be more detrimental to performance i would be pretty certain, it just creates too much extra torque for the lower body to handle..
-
Person B, because of the increased leverage a higher center of gravity provides. That is - if they have the same structure, Person B will jump higher. But since you're saying they have the same VJ, that means they don't have the same structure so Person A will probably respond better to the fat loss.
But this is HIGHLY theoretical and you shouldn't ever worry about that since there are SOOO many other things to consider.
AH, Ok. So person B is in better current shape (for a leaper) and person A would respond better to fat loss/training because he would get rid of the lower body fat, as person B has less lower body fat to lose and more upper body fat to lose.
I have another great hypothetical. Best friends, one named George and the other named Andre. Who's likely to dunk first if they start training at the same time?
-
Person B, because of the increased leverage a higher center of gravity provides. That is - if they have the same structure, Person B will jump higher. But since you're saying they have the same VJ, that means they don't have the same structure so Person A will probably respond better to the fat loss.
But this is HIGHLY theoretical and you shouldn't ever worry about that since there are SOOO many other things to consider.
AH, Ok. So person B is in better current shape (for a leaper) and person A would respond better to fat loss/training because he would get rid of the lower body fat, as person B has less lower body fat to lose and more upper body fat to lose.
I have another great hypothetical. Best friends, one named George and the other named Andre. Who's likely to dunk first if they start training at the same time?
Well George, because he has more vowels in his name. Or maybe Andre because his name is shorter? :ninja:
-
A better observation would be how the body-fat is stored. If you knew how to differentiate potential visceral adipose tissue from subcutaneous distribution you'd have a pretty decent barometer of athletic potential. Performance in speed-strength activities correlates strongly with tesosterone level, which correlates with FT fiber expression and VAT storage.
An easier observation is just look at the hands and the 2D:4D ratio. A longer ring (the 4th) finger indicates greater testosterone exposure in the womb and likely greater testosterone expression in adulthood. If your pointing finger is longer than ring finger you're likely not as testosterone dominant and vice versa. If the 4th finger on one hand is noticeably longer than the one on the other hand that indicates very good testosterone sensitivity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio
-
haha, my ring finger is enormous...that's good right?
-
A better observation would be how the body-fat is stored. If you knew how to differentiate potential visceral adipose tissue from subcutaneous distribution you'd have a pretty decent barometer of athletic potential. Performance in speed-strength activities correlates strongly with tesosterone level, which correlates with FT fiber expression and VAT storage.
An easier observation is just look at the hands and the 2D:4D ratio. A longer ring (the 4th) finger indicates greater testosterone exposure in the womb and likely greater testosterone expression in adulthood. If your pointing finger is longer than ring finger you're likely not as testosterone dominant and vice versa. If the 4th finger on one hand is noticeably longer than the one on the other hand that indicates very good testosterone sensitivity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio
wow, brilliant info
any chance you can you expand on this: If the 4th finger on one hand is noticeably longer than the one on the other hand that indicates very good testosterone sensitivity? do you mean the difference in finger length between left and right hand ?
-
As any third-grader knows, IF UR A DUDE AND UR INDEX FINGER IS LONGER THEN UR GAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
My guess is that the digit ratio theory is gonna be disproven, or at least fall out of favor, pretty soon. It just smells too much like craniometry to me. I snooped around a little bit just now and found that people have done studies correlating finger length with everything from competitive performance of female fencers to rates of schizophrenia. But they're just correlations, which are subject to all kind of biases and errors even in the most honest and diligent scientists. The best guess anyone has made as to why the correlations might be there is prenatal androgen exposure, leading to greater testosterone levels and sensitivity in later life, as Kellyb pointed out.
But doubt is already being cast on use of digit ratio as a marker of prenatal androgen levels, which is the supposed basis for its validity as a determinant of masculinization and therefore all kinds of physiological effects. And if there's not even a correlation there, the rest of the supposed effect kind of falls apart:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20862705 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20862705)
Dev Psychobiol. 2011 Jan;53(1):69-78.
No association between two candidate markers of prenatal sex hormones: digit ratios (2D:4D and other) and finger-ridge counts.
Dressler SG, Voracek M.
Department of Basic Psychological Research, School of Psychology, University of Vienna, Liebiggasse 5, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
The second-to-fourth digit ratio (2D:4D), putatively indexing prenatal androgen levels retrospectively, has become increasingly popular as an easily applied measure in research into the prenatal sex-hormonal bases of behavior, health, and disease. However, its validity has not yet been conclusively demonstrated and in fact is currently debated, because validation tests of 2D:4D with other, prenatally established, presumed markers for prenatal sex-hormone action have yielded mixed evidence or still are unavailable. Hence, the associations of 2D:4D with finger-ridge counts, one such further under-researched marker, were examined in this study. In a sample of 75 male and 75 female normal healthy adults, the six possible finger-length ratios of the human hand (from 2D:3D to 4D:5D, including the classic 2D:4D ratio) were ascertained with two commonly used measurement methods (imaged-based vs. fingers measured directly), along with two traditional dermatoglyphic traits (total and absolute finger-ridge counts). Sex differences in finger-length ratios (lower in men) generally were of moderate size (about .5 SD units), whereas those in finger-ridge counts (higher in men) were small to negligible (about .2 SD units). Within-sex analysis did not indicate theory compliant (i.e., negative) correlations between these two sets of traits that were consistent, noteworthy, or reliable. Finger-length ratios and finger-ridge counts are ontogenetically overlapping in their prenatal formation and anatomically adjacent. Hence, possible temporal and localized sex-hormonal effects in prenatal life are unlikely to account for their nonassociation. The current findings cast some doubt on the validity of these retrospective pointers to prenatal androgen levels.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19819951
(http://)
Endocrinology. 2009 Nov;150(11):5119-24. Epub 2009 Oct 9.
Fingers as a marker of prenatal androgen exposure.
Berenbaum SA, Bryk KK, Nowak N, Quigley CA, Moffat S.
Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, 519 Moore, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA. sab31@psu.edu
Comment in:
* Endocrinology. 2009 Nov;150(11):4819-22.
Abstract
Interest in biological substrates of sex-related variations in psychological and physiological characteristics has led to a search for biomarkers of prenatal hormone exposure that can be measured postnatally. There has been particular interest in digit ratio, the relative lengths of the second and fourth fingers (2D:4D), but its validity as a measure of prenatal androgen has not been established. We report the strongest evaluation of the value of 2D:4D as a biomarker for early androgen exposure. Individuals with 46,XY karyotype but no effective prenatal androgen exposure due to complete androgen insensitivity syndrome had digit ratios that were feminized: they were higher than those of typical men and similar to those of typical women. Nevertheless, the effect was modest in size, and there was considerable within-group variability and between-group overlap, indicating that digit ratio is not a good marker of individual differences in prenatal androgen exposure.
-
Aaaaand boom goes the dynamite:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19553247 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19553247)
Biol Lett. 2009 Oct 23;5(5):643-6. Epub 2009 Jun 24.
Differences in the 2nd to 4th digit length ratio in humans reflect shifts along the common allometric line.
Kratochvíl L, Flegr J.
Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Vinicná 7, 128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic. lukkrat@email.cz
Abstract
Ratios often lead to biased conclusions concerning the actual relationships between examined traits and comparisons of the relative size of traits among groups. Therefore, the use of ratios has been abandoned in most comparative studies. However, ratios such as body mass index and waist-to-hip ratio are widely used in evolutionary biology and medicine. One such, the ratio of the 2nd to the 4th finger (2D : 4D), has been the subject of much recent interest in both humans and animals. Most studies agree that 2D : 4D is sexually dimorphic. In men, the 2nd digit tends to be shorter than the 4th, while in women the 2nd digit tends to be of the same size or slightly longer than the 4th. Nevertheless, here we demonstrate that the sexes do not greatly differ in the scaling between the 2nd and 4th digit. Sexual differences in 2D : 4D are mainly caused by the shift along the common allometric line with non-zero intercept, which means 2D : 4D necessarily decreases with increasing finger length, and the fact that men have longer fingers than women. We conclude that previously published results on the 2D : 4D ratio are biased by its covariation with finger length. We strongly recommend regression-based approaches for comparisons of hand shape among different groups.
-
Lots more science here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%28%22fingers%22%5BMeSH%20Terms%5D%20OR%20%22fingers%22%5BAll%20Fields%5D%20OR%20%22finger%22%5BAll%20Fields%5D%29%20AND%20digit%5BAll%20Fields%5D%20AND%20ratio%5BAll%20Fields%5D%20AND%20%28%22testosterone%22%5BMeSH%20Terms%5D%20OR%20%22testosterone%22%5BAll%20Fields%5D%29&cmd=DetailsSearch
and here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=2D%5BAll%20Fields%5D%20AND%20%284D%5BAll%20Fields%5D%20AND%20ratio%5BAll%20Fields%5D%20AND%20%28%22sports%22%5BMeSH%20Terms%5D%20OR%20%22sports%22%5BAll%20Fields%5D%29%29&cmd=DetailsSearch
It's not perfect but, like facial and jaw structure, are one of many indicators that can tell you things.
There are many other interesting anatomical and muscular correlators that one can observe in people.
For example, in women calf size tends to correlate negatively with breast size.
In men, higher calf insertion points correlate with more muscular, broader upper bodies and vice versa.
In men, knockneedness tends to correlate with a soft, feminine physique and bowleggedness tends to correlate with masculinity.
-
Okie doke. You and the apparently dozens of researchers that love the 2D:4D theory might be right about all of this. I'm just saying, it's is all a bit too much like eugenicists or craniometrists trying to determine who's more or less likely to be a criminal, or more or less "intelligent," based on cranial cavity size or facial features. That was all exposed as a farce many decades ago.
So I'm inclined to be skeptical.
-
Okie doke. You and the apparently dozens of researchers that love the 2D:4D theory might be right about all of this. I'm just saying, it's is all a bit too much like eugenicists or craniometrists trying to determine who's more or less likely to be a criminal, or more or less "intelligent," based on cranial cavity size or facial features. That was all exposed as a farce many decades ago.
So I'm inclined to be skeptical.
Yeah. It's not exactly solid science. I wonder for how many of these studies the results occurred purely by chance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20733526
The Association between Athleticism, Prenatal Testosterone, and Finger Length.
Moffit, DM and Swank, CB (PE) The association between athleticism, prenatal testosterone, and finger length. J Strength Cond Res 24(x): 000-000, 2010-Research suggests that prenatal levels of testosterone are related to finger length development and traits beneficial to athletic skill, such as power, endurance, visual-spatial skills, or sensation seeking and dominance behavior. In men, the second digit to fourth digit ratio (2D:4D) has been shown to correlate with success in competitive levels of football (soccer), which suggests that the 2D:4D ratio is a possible marker for level of attainment in sport. The purpose of this study was to explore the 2D:4D relationships between sports and make comparisons with nonathletes. A multiple group posttest-only design was used. Participants included 138 male volunteers with 92 intercollegiate National Collegiate Athletic Association division I athletes and 46 nonathletes who were not varsity athletes. The independent variable was group (crew, football, gymnastics, soccer, nonathlete). The dependent variable was the 2D:4D ratio. No significant differences were noted between the athletes and nonathletes (p = 0.182). Significant differences were found among the different groups (p = 0.000), with significantly lower ratios between football and crew (p = 0.000), football and nonathletes (p = 0.030), and gymnastics and crew (p = 0.001). This research provides a stronger level of evidence that the 2D:4D ratio may help indicate potential athleticism or competition-level achievement, but the external validity may be limited to only specific sports.
To me that suggests that digit ratio is dependent on something else, possibly height, which correlates with success in football rather than general athleticism.
-
if someone has 30% BF it will be equally distributaed around the body. Also, when you lose that fat, it will be taken off equally.
I can see what you are trying to say here, but it does not make sense. The size difference might be more muscle in the upper or lower, the fat is equal.
If I am wrong, somebody correct me. That is what my teacher told me during Anatomy last year.
It would be better to have more mass in your legs, then you might be able to squat more and thus jump more. I do not know if there is really a correct answer. Lance/adarq probably know more than they are saying here, ask them in PM's :)
UPDATE: Just noticed there is a page 2 :uhhhfacepalm: So if this is said already :), but i ain't reading anymore ;)