Talk:Chin-up

Deletion nomination

— JIP | Talk 06:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The current discussion is about merging this article with the Pull-up article, since they are basically variations on the same exercise.Zipzip50 (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for external link addition

I would like to make a formal request to add my website to the external links section of this page. I wouldn't like to add it myself, but I would prefer that someone else review the website, and make the decision to add it. It shows how to make a homemade pullup bar without drilling any holes. --Sugarskane 03:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My experiences, which may or may not be worth something:

• For those who can't pull off a entire chinup but are not far away from it, negitive chinups might be a good idea. The idea is to stand on a chair and start from the top, and in a controlled fashion lower yourself down. Obviously you'll need enough strength to not just drop straight down and damage yourself.
• Chinups are relatively safe as far as I've read/experienced. The most damage I've done is by dropping and locking the elbows out while attempting to do them in a hurry.
• Might be worth commenting on how many is many. A perfect marine PFT score is 20, time unlimited. I've read more than once that the average for females is 0 - curiously in the marine PFT women don't do chinups at all. FjVwxII1 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Chin-up vs. pull-up

I restored the distinction between "chin-up" and "pull-up" because in my experience many (if not most) published sources that mention both terms make this distinction. --Muchness 00:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good idea. But one should note that of the three linked sources, one is not reachable, one only describes how to build a chin/pull-up bar and one, the venerable exrx-site, describes chin-ups as done with a overhand (pronated) grip (which they use for pull-ups also). I am note sure if this is helpful. Tierlieb 11:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok there are serious problems here with the descriptions of pull ups vs chin ups and the supporting links. Link 1 shows a person with the palms of his hands facing away from him (you can see his thumbs to give you reference), which is what I always believed to be a chin up but is contrary to what the article says. Link 3 has a video that is titles as describing someone who is doing a pull-up but the video shows a person with his palms facing him, but the article has this defined as a chin-up. Can someone provide a link that shows the entymology of the words chin-up and pull-up? I was taught that a chin-up (palms facing away) is named such because at the climax of the rep your chin is just barely above the bar. But I would just like some links that actually support what is said in the article either way. The references and the article should not be in disagreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.152.96 (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm alright with identifying that this distinction exists for some people, but I think we should merge these articles. They are essentially the same exercises but for the difference in pro/supi nation and its resulting influence on elbow flexors and tendency to ab/ad duct and medi/later ally rotate in the shoulder. If you take note of the external links, ExRx actually shows a supinated "pull up" grip for the chin up, showing a very well established source doesn't do this. If we look at the construction, they're all pull ups, and a chin up is a variation where the chin touches the bar. A sternum-up would be when the sternum touches it. In between the two, when the chin passes over top of the bar, would be a neck-up. Variations like mouth/nose/eye/brow/hair ups could be invented in a completely arbitrary way. Basically, chinning involves pulling up and one can get one's chin over the bar with a supinated grip too, so making this distinction is senseless. It should merely be a small note in terminology used in slang. Much like some might use "leg curl" rather than "knee curl." Dictabeard (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree this distinction does not make much sense to me. It does not seem very common; It is not a ubiquitous definition. Also note that both articles have a majority of examples with palms facing away from chest. In other words, in this article this definition of a chin-up is violated. I'm not a huge wikipedia editor, have never merged an article but I might take a shot at it next time I'm here. I see a few sources citing this difference but it doesn't even seem to make sense etymologically. Perhaps Pull-Up should be the main article and Chin-Up should be a stub that just says, "sometimes refers to an underhand pullup. Otherwise is another word for Pull-Up"216.55.28.118 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Chin up/Pull up

For anyone who thinks they cannot do either a chin up or a pull up, you have to give yourself a chance. I bought a chin up bar and installed it in a doorway and I kept trying and trying every day. Eventually I was able to do about half a chin up by jumping up and grabbing on with my arms bent at a 45 degree angle, and then pulling myself up the rest of the way. I can now pull myself up all the way by chin up. With pull ups, which are more challenging, I am doing about 75% of one. I haven't gotten my chin all the way up in my pull up yet, but it's coming. There is also a set of grips on my bar where my palms face each other. I am ok at that one, but I am best at chin ups. Not only am I working on my pull up, I also want to get to the place where I can do a chin up from a dead hang. You have to keep trying; eventually you will make it. This is coming from a female who never had any strength at all. The gravitron machines are ok, but I was never able to get to this point using one of those. These types of exercises are the best because they make you so strong. If you are a woman you shouldn't be discouraged because you are capable of doing it, you just have to work at it. I plan on one day being able to do several in a row of all different varieties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.150.230 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 26 February 2006.

World record

si mark parick estella ay isa ring ksa ma sa word record —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.61.233 (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The best performances of this exercise may be worth mentioning. Lee Chin-yong (b. August 25, 1925) of South Korea did 612 consecutive chin-ups on December 29, 1994 (aged 69!) in Jongmyo Park, Seoul, South Korea. He also has at least another three World Records to his merit: 120 on March 1, 1979, 170 on May 10, 1983 and 370 on May 14, 1988 (you can see him having a pronated grip in a picture of this performance featured in Guinness 1990 edition) – all done in Seoul. A web reference for the most recent performance was incredibly hard to find, but here's one in Estonian, near the bottom of the page – this is possibly because the record wasn't featured in Guinness World Records until the 2006 edition (though I myself had read about it already in 1995 in a sports annual). Some of his previous records are easy enough to find via Google search.

Guinness 2006 also mentiones (as does the above Estonian page), that the highes amount of chin-ups within an hour is 445 by Frenchman Stéphane Gras, done in Artix (don't know which one), France on April 26, 2004. However, it is likely that in this category pauses are allowed.

The record for cosecutive one-arm chin-ups (from a ring) is 22 by Canadian Robert Chisnall on December 3, 1982 at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

And there's a peculiar record of five chin-ups sideways by Finnish Niilo Niemelä (b. June 21, 1928) on September 5, 1982 in Helsinki, Finland. In other words holding to a vertical bar while keeping the body horizontal. Of course this is a different exercise entirely, but impressive nonetheless. This feat has been featured several times on the Finnish edition of Guinness, most recently 1992. --Anshelm '77 20:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Eternal links

The external link shows incorrect form for a chin, it shows half a chin up as the photos show a starting position with arms at 90 degrees which is incorrect. I would also question the merits of including the "fact" that its easier to add additional resistance using a lat pull down machine as clearly this is dependent on circumstances...

Article scheme for different grips

I want to note here that a new editor has created a separate article for pull-ups and narrowed the scope of this article. There doesn't seem to be a consensus for having either one or two articles, but interested editors may want to review the changes. Melchoir 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

merge with the pull up article

I think this article should me mergered becasue of their function of working out the same muscle in the back except one works out the biceps more and the other works out something eles. It should be consider.Barry White 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, I'll post the tag suggesting this. Dictabeard (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pull-up_(exercise)#Merge_from_chin-up the conversation can be had now. DB (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture

It says that the exercise can be made harder with a weight belt, yet includes a picture of a lifting belt, a wholly different item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.139.145 (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm surprised I overlooked this observation, this is completely true. I'll see if there's a more appropriate replacement. DB (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The picture illustrating a "chin-up" by the girl is actually performing a flex arm hang, ref USMC physical fitness test (MCO P6100.12 section 2000.1). While the image is similar to the peak position of a chin-up/pull-up (yes, I believe they are the same thing), the context of the picture (USMC promotional event) renders it inaccurate. Example: someone unaware of USMC PT guidelines would assume that females are expected to perform pullups in the Marines. That is simply not the case. 70.39.231.108 (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The animated picture of the man doing the Chin Up seems to be a Pull Up and not a chin up.alan.polding (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The guy in the diagram is doing pull-ups.

The man depicted in the four drawings near the end of the article is doing pull-ups, not chin-ups. I'd change it but I don't feel like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.244.212 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's do it!

It appears that everyone agrees this article should be merged into the Pull-up article. Now, how do we get someone to do it? By the way, I would vote for "Pull-up/Chin-up" as the name of the article. Zipzip50 (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

That looks as bit complicated, long and ugly, how what I nominate below? Ranze (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - the consensus to not move. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Chin-up → Chin (exercise) – The phrase "chin-up" does not exclusively refer to exercise, but also to encouraging someone to improve their mood. It's even the title of songs by Copeland, Debbie Reynolds, and appears in Charlotte's web. The "-up" is not necessary, the phrase is often abbreviated without it. "Doing chins" (noun) or or as verb: ("to chin") = "Chinning for 5 reps". I also suggest we merge pull-up (exercise) into this new location as well. While some make artificial distinctions between the two (which we can discuss) historically there has not been any consistent distinction between them. Ranze (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose move (ignorant neutral on merge because I simply haven't looked into the merits of it). Current title is not only a WP:NATURALDIS but also the WP:COMMONNAME, at least in comparison to "chin". For example:
  1. "doing chins" gets fewer than 100 GBooks hits vs. 1200 for "doing chin-ups"
  2. "twenty chins" gets 37 hits (mostly off-topic) vs. 84 on-topic hits for "twenty chin-ups".
  3. "ten chins" and "ten chin-ups" are roughly tied, but many of the former are exaggerations for "double chins", whereas almost all of the latter are on-topic

The ambiguity with the imperative, unhyphenated phrase wikt:chin up isn't particularly relevant unless that phrase is covered somewhere in Wikipedia, per WP:WINAD; the songs can be covered by hatnotes or a disambiguation at the title-case Chin Up. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose it is a "chin-up", 'chin' is an abbreviation; and the more generic form is "pull-up", so it should never merge here, if we merge it should go to pull-up -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• NOTE a prior merger discussion exists at talk:pull-up (exercise) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

80s sources

@JHP: on Feb 15 on special:diff/705153164 you removed a bunch of reliably sourced information. I restored them, as I can personally attest to their validity (I own the books, got them at a fleamarket, read them personally, did up the cites from scratch) and I don't understand the basis for your calling these sources 'dubious'. You have asserted they contradict a common distinction already present in the 80s. Based on what? If you have sources from the 80s using the other format, I think the best approach is for you to introduce them, rather than remove sources which speak differently them.

By showing both source groups together, we could show that both kinds of language co-existed during that period. We should not erase the impact of decades of literature on exercise history simply due to present trends. Ranze (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ranze. First, thank you for your many contributions to this article.

I am not claiming that your sources are dubious. I am claiming that your editorializing based on those sources is dubious. Your edit in the intro states, "In the 1970s and 1980s, the term chin-up not only included an overhand/pronated ("palms away") grip, but used it as the default meaning of the term...". None of your sources say this. None of your sources are history books that write about changing exercise terminology or the predominant terminology in a particular decade. Instead, your selection of sources use certain terminology and you are then drawing conclusions based on those sources. That drawing of conclusions constitutes original research according to Wikipedia policy. To quote WP:OR with the important point bolded:

"The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."

None of your sources say that an overhand grip was the default meaning of the term in the 1970s and 1980s. That is your own analysis.

That said, I own a copy of Super High-Intensity Bodybuilding by Ellington Darden published in 1986. In the "Back" chapter (p. 84), it has the exact quote you cited for the behind neck chin-up, "Use an overhand grip." However, in the "Arms" chapter (p. 120) it says for "Chin-up, super slow": "From a hanging, underhanded position, start pulling up very slowly." I'm guessing you'd find similar text in the "Arms" chapter of High-Intensity Bodybuilding.

In Arnold Schwarzenegger's The New Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding, first published in 1985 and updated in 1998, it differentiates between "wide-grip chins" (overhand grip) and "close-grip chins" (done with either a close-grip chin triangle or with an underhand grip on a straight bar).

I don't know how old you are, but I grew up in the 1980s. Back then I learned chin-ups and pull-ups to mean exactly what they mean on bodybuilding.com today. Most of the exercise terminology hasn't changed since then. As is true today, there were sometimes duplicate names for the same exercises. However, my experience of living in the 1980s is original research and can't be used in the article.

--JHP (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It has been used as the default meaning, as you can see here they say "chin" and show an overhand grip.

This is also present in Vic Boff's Body Builder's Bible from 1985:

Natural-Hands Grip: .. palms of your hands turned to the front

Reverse-Hands Grip: .. palms of your hands facing your body

The Neck Chin .. a wide natural-hands grip

and in Muscleblasting! from 1988:

Chin Ups: Take a fairly wide grip on a chinning bar, palms away from you

Close-Grip Chin-Ups: Hands are close together on the chinning bar, palms away from you

Reverse Grip Chin-Ups: Use a curling grip (palms toward you)

If palms-to-body (supinated) is a "reverse hands" or "reverse grip", this would make the opposite the default. Kind of like how walking or driving a car forward is the default and we refer to the default's opposite as reverse. In this case my use of 'default' is simply a synonym with clearer meaning than "natural", adjusting vocabulary for the times.

I don't see this as editorializing, just conveying what the sources say. I didn't make any claims about the predominant terminology of a given decade, simply that the terminology existed in that decade.

I think the issue here is you are reading some kind of intended meaning in it which I did not intend. If you have some thoughts on how to rephrase it to avoid people coming to that conclusion, I am open to it just so long as it still gets across what I intended: to show that the term was used that way.

By saying "default" I did not mean "the default meaning for everyone" or "the default meaning for the majority", just the default meaning for the particular authors of these books.

I don't know if we have any expert sources commenting on this to establish what the most popular use was at the time, so I intended to leave it unanswered.

If you would like to cite those sources you brought up to show that "chin up" was also used (un-modified by "reverse") to refer to supinated grip in the 70s/80s, that seems alright to me. I wasn't sure exactly when that began.

What would be even more interesting is the earliest source you could find for "reverse" being used to refer to a pronated grip instead of a supinated, kind of like the opposite of the 85/88 sources above. As you pointed out, the Darden source merely shows that the term was interchangeable and unattached in his work (could refer to either pronation or supination)

I should probably go back to these and fill out "chapter=" where possible, just did this for Darden's. From what you have said about "Super" it seems like he changed "Wide, Wide Lats" (chapter 9 beginning on 147) to "Back" (chapter ? beginning on 84). Simplifications' useful but does make comparing the 84/86 editions a bit hard. Based on the page count I am guessing that these chapters either got moved around or cut down (perhaps removing pictures?) They both have 192 page counts so my guess is just shifted around.

Guessing your "Arms" is probably "Overdeveloping your Arms" (chapter 20, page 157) ... yep there is a picture on the lower-right of 162 of the one-repetition chin-up. The picture shows an underhand grip. The description on 163 and does specify underhand. I think this means that Darden simply uses chin-up inclusively to refer to either grip. I have relocated the reference to reflect that. Ranze (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Calories

I miss an important point of view from this article: How many calories do I burn by one chin-up? Or how the speed of repetition and the body weight modify the amount of burnt calories? (Sorry for my bad English)--Porbóllett (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chin-up. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522145154/http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCO P6100.12 W CH 1.pdf to http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCO P6100.12 W CH 1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)