Do Pullups make any difference?

Being able to do pull-ups can definitely make you a better runner. You are likely more efficient and have better closing speed as you can do more pull-ups, assuming your mileage is where it should be.

idk about running, i mean i think they help a bit but overall fitness and functional strength pullups/chinups are awesome bro!

pullups/chinups and dips and pistol squats man!

A high school called Proviso West in Illinois was really good in the 60's.

I wrote the coach who was very nice and wrote back to me. A few things he wrote were that I was a little heavy at 5' 9" 138 pounds, that his kids ran lots of intervals, and they did pull ups between sets.

I don't know if it helped them or not, but I did them a few times and could do 18 pull ups.

Class of '64 / wrote:

A high school called Proviso West in Illinois was really good in the 60's.

I wrote the coach who was very nice and wrote back to me. A few things he wrote were that I was a little heavy at 5' 9" 138 pounds, that his kids ran lots of intervals, and they did pull ups between sets.

I don't know if it helped them or not, but I did them a few times and could do 18 pull ups.

Does Proviso West still have that awesome field house / indoor track?

SimpSun wrote:

Does Proviso West still have that awesome field house / indoor track?

I’m pretty sure they do. I drive past the school once every week or so.

RulonGardner wrote:

Do pull-ups make any significant difference to running ability or overall fitness?

Sure does help, bro. Make sure you are running and running fast, sleeping well, staying well hydrated, staying flexible, and eating well. Lifting isn't as important as any of those, but it's more important than anything else.

Pull-ups, chin-ups, dips and push-ups are great. I do them 3-4 times every two weeks. In addition to the form benefits, the extra muscle is nice to keep your metabolism up when you taper.

Yes. Ladies like the V shape.

/Thread

RulonGardner wrote:

Do pull-ups make any significant difference to running ability or overall fitness? I know it strengthens the core etc, any other benefits? Can it lead to being top-heavy?

Valid question. Push/Pull ups are quality strength moves. Great all around core workout, gives good balance and shape to the upper body. I pounded the weights for years, now at almost 31, I have 15+ years of strength work under my belt, and sets of 5-8 of push/pull ups keeps my strength work honest still without excess volume. If you're putting in the miles, and eating quality foods and not pounding the booze, you won't become top heavy, if anything you'll add some efficient lean muscle mass. The only way you'll become "bulked" from strength training is if you're putting in large volume, body building style. Keep the sets to 3-4, reps below 7-8, and your body will thank you over time.

ladies love the V wrote:

The only way you'll become "bulked" from strength training is if you're putting in large volume, body building style. Keep the sets to 3-4, reps below 7-8, and your body will thank you over time.

Everything else you said was mostly correct, but this is just silly. You will absolutely gain mass from 5 or less reps, assuming diet and the weight lifted are correct. This is how powerlifters and weightlifters train.

crosscounts wrote:

ladies love the V wrote:

The only way you'll become "bulked" from strength training is if you're putting in large volume, body building style. Keep the sets to 3-4, reps below 7-8, and your body will thank you over time.

Everything else you said was mostly correct, but this is just silly. You will absolutely gain mass from 5 or less reps, assuming diet and the weight lifted are correct. This is how powerlifters and weightlifters train.

Any lifting could potentially add mass, but for a runner to worry about it is silly. People act as if they'll turn into the Rock if they do a few pull-ups. Higher rep sets definitely lead to more mass. Lower rep sets will build more strength, but not mass. The high rep sets damage muscle tissue more, which is what leads to muscle repair, and this more mass.

Lifter.. wrote:

Lower rep sets will build more strength, but not mass. The high rep sets damage muscle tissue more, which is what leads to muscle repair, and this more mass.

This is an inane and misleading oversimplification.

I thought more reps (and lighter weight) makes you leaner, as in more definition. Less reps (heavier weight) makes you bulk-up?

Running more miles = more endurance (has to be a speed you can endure)

Running sprints = faster (all out can't maintain)

its a bit like weights:

more reps = more strength/definition (a weight you can maintain)

more weight = increases power (you can't rep much of a weight which maxes you out)

A good example, sprinters have by far the biggest hams, marathoners have sticks. So muscle damage and repair is not exclusive to time/reps

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Yes. Ladies like the V shape.

/Thread

Used to...now they prefer the "Dad bod" because it makes them feel better about their own lack of physical fitness.

areusure? wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Yes. Ladies like the V shape.

/Thread

Used to...now they prefer the "Dad bod" because it makes them feel better about their own lack of physical fitness.

POTD

Body oh my wrote:

Being able to do pull-ups can definitely make you a better runner. You are likely more efficient and have better closing speed as you can do more pull-ups, assuming your mileage is where it should be.

Pffffffff yea ull get faster if u do pull ups your lats and forearms are very important in distance running

PasaTiempo wrote:

I thought more reps (and lighter weight) makes you leaner, as in more definition. Less reps (heavier weight) makes you bulk-up?

Running more miles = more endurance (has to be a speed you can endure)

Running sprints = faster (all out can't maintain)

its a bit like weights:

more reps = more strength/definition (a weight you can maintain)

more weight = increases power (you can't rep much of a weight which maxes you out)

A good example, sprinters have by far the biggest hams, marathoners have sticks. So muscle damage and repair is not exclusive to time/reps

Actually, the poster you're replying to is correct. Lower reps with heavier weight won't bulk you as much as higher reps with lower weight. I went through a long injury, but I could still lift. I did countless hours of research and asked on many lifting forums, and I was surprised too, but higher reps bulk people more (which I didn't want).

That being said, a non runner who lifts with either type of program will gain mass. Also, a runner who does either type won't gain a lot, but to be safe/not gain mass, competitive runners should lift heavy with lower reps.

Remember Jordan Hasay's lifting video from two weeks before Chicago? She did 5 reps with higher weight. She's also very, very lean (under 105 lbs), but can deadlift over 200 lbs.

crosscounts wrote:

Lifter.. wrote:

Lower rep sets will build more strength, but not mass. The high rep sets damage muscle tissue more, which is what leads to muscle repair, and this more mass.

This is an inane and misleading oversimplification.

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/

Even if it is oversimplification, there is a big truth to it.

They made a difference for me. I am 37 now and started about 4 years ago. Before that I never did upper body strength work, and I think I could get away it because of my age. Now I find that they help me with my form and overall I feel better (tough to quantify that). I added maybe 2 kg of mass as a result, but I'm 180cm, 73kg so it's a low percentage change.

I do a core / pullup / dips / lunges workout 2-3x per week at the end of my runs.

Real Lyfe Nobodee wrote:

areusure? wrote:

Used to...now they prefer the "Dad bod" because it makes them feel better about their own lack of physical fitness.

POTD

There is a part in here that nails it. The thing about "pulling off" the dad bod is you need big arms, a good frame, youth (the dad bod is a misnomer), and not a lot of hair. The distance from dad bod to regular fat guy is almost non-existent.