Doesn't matter. They train for several hours every day from a very young age. Their musculature tendons fascia and bones are in far better condition than brolifters with watery muscles. Just do your routine and be content. Maybe callisthenics is something achievable
>health
yes >size
no >aesthetics
yes, and it's not even close
gymnasts routinely wreck their bodies during their careers
nothing about any sport at the highest level is ever about health
the gymbro is going to be healthier in the long run
No.
Gymnasts have more injuries than weightlifters and are smaller. People who train at the gym for health and size are even better off than both of them.
I doubt your stats have real bearing on the normie level. A person doing gymnastics/calisthenics for health as opposed to competition is about as safe as it gets.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27328853/
This doesn't substantiate what you're saying. I get that you're a braindead homosexual with no background in research and you don't have paywall access like I do, so I'll paste the relevant section for you:
>For CrossFit athletes, powerlifting, gymnastics, and Olympic lifting exercises (23, 20, and 17 %, respectively) were most commonly cited as causing injury
This means the powerlifting component of CrossFit injured more people than the "gymnastics" component.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4332645/
This isn't comparative with the previous study if that's the angle you were going for. If you bothered to look up what their definition of "athlete exposure" is (and ideally also knew what a gymnastics training session involved), you'd understand this.
4 months ago
Anonymous
No one is talking about powerlifting.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>noooo we don't mean bench press, squat and deadlift!!!
Buddy are you ok? Do you need me to call an ambulance?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Bodybuilding had the lowest injury rates (0.12-0.7 injuries per lifter per year; 0.24-1 injury per 1000 h), with strongman (4.5-6.1 injuries per 1000 h) and Highland Games (7.5 injuries per 1000 h) reporting the highest rates.
Can you even read at all you fricking moronic spastic?
4 months ago
Anonymous
Oh and FYI the term athlete exposure means when the athlete is either competing or training for their chosen sport. You'd know this if you had even a remote idea towards exercise or sport science but you clearly do not.
I doubt your stats have real bearing on the normie level. A person doing gymnastics/calisthenics for health as opposed to competition is about as safe as it gets.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27328853/
This doesn't substantiate what you're saying. I get that you're a braindead homosexual with no background in research and you don't have paywall access like I do, so I'll paste the relevant section for you:
>For CrossFit athletes, powerlifting, gymnastics, and Olympic lifting exercises (23, 20, and 17 %, respectively) were most commonly cited as causing injury
This means the powerlifting component of CrossFit injured more people than the "gymnastics" component.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4332645/
This isn't comparative with the previous study if that's the angle you were going for. If you bothered to look up what their definition of "athlete exposure" is (and ideally also knew what a gymnastics training session involved), you'd understand this.
Bodybuilding in every study is shown to have the lowest injury rate per person BY FAR, you coping DYEL Black person. It's less than 1 injury per person per year, whereas gymnastics has several.
The difference is even bigger when you start comparing it by level (novice, elite, etc.).
Gymnastics is a death maze for your health and longevity.
And no, just because you do a few pull ups, dips and maybe some progressions for a front lever on rings 3 times a week doesn't mean you're training gymnastics, you fricking baboon. Maybe if you spent less time reading shit you clearly don't understand and more on working out, you wouldn't have to defend a DYEL sport tailored for manlets.
Don't choose your sport based on the elite of that sport. It doesn't matter how good a gymanst looks, he's been doing this full time since he was 7. You won't do that.
Yeah exactly lol. >"Hmm I want to get swole and aesthetic. Should I train directly for that, i.e. bodybuild, or go through a convoluted longcut of training for some performance goal in the hopes that it will grant me the body I desire as a byproduct?"
The only reason people think like this is because they desire muscle but there is a stigma around bodybuilding as being in some way less cultured and vain, somehow not legitimate, so people feel the need to mask their desire by fulfilling it through some mean they consider valid. Gymnastics is great, I'm sure. More people need to cross-train in general, it makes you a better athlete and specialization is for bugs. Bodybuilding leaves you plenty of room for other persuits, as well. Further, there are a lot of movements that can be taken from gymnastics and intergrated into a bodybuilding regime. However, you're not going to be able to bodybuild by training for performance, and even if you could, you would've gotten to the same point much faster if you were honest about what you wanted. The same applies to all of these memes spammed on IST constantly, whether it be cycling, or bouldering or whatever.
>health
yes
>size
no
>aesthetics
yes, and it's not even close
Is it worth risking horse scapula?
Are you the same anon from the other thread
>worth risking horse scapula
No. There's no way women find that shit attractive
Doesn't matter. They train for several hours every day from a very young age. Their musculature tendons fascia and bones are in far better condition than brolifters with watery muscles. Just do your routine and be content. Maybe callisthenics is something achievable
gymnasts routinely wreck their bodies during their careers
nothing about any sport at the highest level is ever about health
the gymbro is going to be healthier in the long run
>aesthetic
>being under 5'6
No.
Gymnasts have more injuries than weightlifters and are smaller. People who train at the gym for health and size are even better off than both of them.
>Gymnasts have more injuries than weightlifters
lol
He's right. Bodybuilding only averages 1 injury per 1000 sessions, strongman 4.5-6, highland games 7.5 whereas Gymnastics averages 8.7 injuries per 1000 sessions.
I doubt your stats have real bearing on the normie level. A person doing gymnastics/calisthenics for health as opposed to competition is about as safe as it gets.
Doubtful. More experience correlated with fewer injuries so someone who does gymnastics as a hobby is more likely to succumb to an injury.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27328853/
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4332645/
Apologize homosexual.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27328853/
This doesn't substantiate what you're saying. I get that you're a braindead homosexual with no background in research and you don't have paywall access like I do, so I'll paste the relevant section for you:
>For CrossFit athletes, powerlifting, gymnastics, and Olympic lifting exercises (23, 20, and 17 %, respectively) were most commonly cited as causing injury
This means the powerlifting component of CrossFit injured more people than the "gymnastics" component.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4332645/
This isn't comparative with the previous study if that's the angle you were going for. If you bothered to look up what their definition of "athlete exposure" is (and ideally also knew what a gymnastics training session involved), you'd understand this.
No one is talking about powerlifting.
>noooo we don't mean bench press, squat and deadlift!!!
Buddy are you ok? Do you need me to call an ambulance?
>Bodybuilding had the lowest injury rates (0.12-0.7 injuries per lifter per year; 0.24-1 injury per 1000 h), with strongman (4.5-6.1 injuries per 1000 h) and Highland Games (7.5 injuries per 1000 h) reporting the highest rates.
Can you even read at all you fricking moronic spastic?
Oh and FYI the term athlete exposure means when the athlete is either competing or training for their chosen sport. You'd know this if you had even a remote idea towards exercise or sport science but you clearly do not.
>source: my ass
Bodybuilding in every study is shown to have the lowest injury rate per person BY FAR, you coping DYEL Black person. It's less than 1 injury per person per year, whereas gymnastics has several.
The difference is even bigger when you start comparing it by level (novice, elite, etc.).
Gymnastics is a death maze for your health and longevity.
And no, just because you do a few pull ups, dips and maybe some progressions for a front lever on rings 3 times a week doesn't mean you're training gymnastics, you fricking baboon. Maybe if you spent less time reading shit you clearly don't understand and more on working out, you wouldn't have to defend a DYEL sport tailored for manlets.
lifting weights is always better, even in the for of calisthenics
gymnastic ring guys have some of the fullest biceps I've ever seen. fuller even than mass monster bodybuilders.
yeah but their backs look FRICKED UP.
I find it aesthetic in a roundabout way. You know it's essentially purely functional which makes it more beautiful I think
... You mean I could find love despite my hideous deformities?
Don't choose your sport based on the elite of that sport. It doesn't matter how good a gymanst looks, he's been doing this full time since he was 7. You won't do that.
Yeah exactly lol.
>"Hmm I want to get swole and aesthetic. Should I train directly for that, i.e. bodybuild, or go through a convoluted longcut of training for some performance goal in the hopes that it will grant me the body I desire as a byproduct?"
The only reason people think like this is because they desire muscle but there is a stigma around bodybuilding as being in some way less cultured and vain, somehow not legitimate, so people feel the need to mask their desire by fulfilling it through some mean they consider valid. Gymnastics is great, I'm sure. More people need to cross-train in general, it makes you a better athlete and specialization is for bugs. Bodybuilding leaves you plenty of room for other persuits, as well. Further, there are a lot of movements that can be taken from gymnastics and intergrated into a bodybuilding regime. However, you're not going to be able to bodybuild by training for performance, and even if you could, you would've gotten to the same point much faster if you were honest about what you wanted. The same applies to all of these memes spammed on IST constantly, whether it be cycling, or bouldering or whatever.
No. BTW, gymnasts lift weights as part of their training.
Yeah, not really. I don't know why people who've never set foot in a gymnasium keep saying this,
>Are gymnastics
pain. gymnastics are pain.
Only if you are a manlet.
t. not a manlet
are those feet edited? why are they so fricking small?
pic rel is what you can expect after 12 years, you be the judge