all posts post new thread

Bodyweight Calisthenics without equipment is more than enough for making strength and hypertrophy gains forever, according to my logic...

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Mayukh Sen

Level 1 Valued Member
Hey guys, I would like to share an idea on why I think calisthenics without equipment (except for a place to hang from) *IS ENOUGH TO KEEP BUILDING MUSCLE FOREVER, AS OPTIMALLY AS BARBELLS WITH UNLIMITED ADJUSTED WEIGHTS....* I would love to see your criticism of this idea, you would know where I am right or wrong about it.... I would like to know that....




So basically the idea is to get to *high non stop max rep numbers* in highly challenging bodyweight movements that cover the whole body and that are the most challenging relative strength wise speaking, which will land you in the elite relative strength zone by any standards, going there through the means of progressive bulking (surplus is necessary for new muscle tissue generation, eating less will hurt progress, as we see in 5/5 and any hypertrophy program).....



*And then simply maintaining that max rep number (that guarantees elite relative strength) while bulking to a heavier and heavier bodyweight, and as we know, to get bigger and stronger even with weights, the idea is to eat in a surplus, otherwise no muscle tissue weight will be added to your body if you are eating maintenance.*



Now hypothetically speaking imagine a 300lbs dude who can do 25+ strict non stop one arm chin ups each arm, 30+ strict non stop one arm one leg push ups each arm, 25+ strict non stop deep handstand push ups and 50+ strict nonstop pistol squats each leg, 25+ strict one arm hanging leg raises each arm.



These numbers for these exercises ensure that almost entirety of your bodyweight has to be pure dense lean muscle, tendon and bone tissue, with minimal scope for any body fat. Otherwise being able to do that will be impossible.



Now if you are 300lbs while being able to do all that, majority of 300lbs is also just muscle. And seeing what guys of that weight are capable of in terms of even basic calisthenics (most bodybuilders or powerlifters of that size cant even do more than 15 regular pull ups and 30 deep honest dips.



The difference is not relative strength, but absolute strength, because the weight lifted in each of those movements increases as your overall bodyweight increases. You are literally lifting twice the weight now that you have gone from 180lbs to 300lbs.


Now of course the one arm pull up number I inserted here is outlandishly high. However that is irrelevant.


*The basic idea is to focus on increasing your max reps with highly challenging bodyweight movements that covers your whole body, while eating to gain muscle weight, forever. I am talking 200-300 kcal surplus per day.*



This is how I think prisoners get jacked. Without weights. Their focus on gaining reps and gaining weight. Going to beast mode failure each set upon recovery, and doing plenty of conditioning between.



*Because if your relative strength doesnt change, stays the same, but your bodyweight keeps going up, then your absolute strength also keeps going up, absolute strength being the foremost determiner of the weight of muscle tissue on your body, relative strength being the foremost determiner of how much of your bodyweight is fat free muscle.*



Some isometric work on walls or with your own body (charles bronson solitary fitness type isometrics) will take care of your training in terms of generating maximum contractile force, which the gym bros have to use heavy 1rm-2rm barbell work to accomplish.



So scientifically and logically speaking, calisthenics will never fall short for keep getting you jacked forever, and you can even become the strongest man on the planet with nothing but your bodyweight. Except for posterior chain strength maybe.


So what do you guys think?
 
Not disagreeing with you here, but

”Now hypothetically speaking imagine a 300lbs dude who can do 25+ strict non stop one arm chin ups each arm, 30+ strict non stop one arm one leg push ups each arm, 25+ strict non stop deep handstand push ups and 50+ strict nonstop pistol squats each leg, 25+ strict one arm hanging leg raises each arm. ”

Damn I’d love to see this person ha ha!
 
Dont forget the square-cube law. As a person gets bigger, his area increases slower than his volume, so his relative strength always goes down. Imagine a simple shape like a cube with side length equals 1". Assuming constant density, its strength is a function of its cross sectional area, or 1^2=1 square inch. Its weight (at constant density), is a function of its volume, or 1^3= 1 cubic inch. Its relative strength is a function of its area to volume ratio, or 1^2 / 1^3 = 1.

Now imagine this same cube starts lifting weights and swinging kettlebells, and achieves SINISTER! Now the length of the cube is 2"! Double the size! Assuming constant density, its strength is a function of its cross sectional area, or 2^2=4 square inch. Its weight (at constant density), is a function of its volume, or 2^3= 8 cubic inch. Its relative strength is a function of its area to volume ratio, or 2^2 / 2^3 = 0.5.

So this 2nd cube is 4 times (2^2 / 1^2=4) stronger than the 1st cube, on an absolute basis. But the 2nd cube is only half as strong as the 1st cube, on a relative basis ((2^2/2^3)/(1^2/1^3)=0.5).

Example, they claim insects can lift like 50+ times their bodyweight. Impressive! But if an insect were the size of an elephant, it wouldnt be able to even walk on those skinny legs. It would instantly die and be crushed by the force of gravity.

Or a powerlifter or weightlifter. A 2 times bodyweight deadlift of someone weighing 120 lb is less impressive then someone weighing 400 lb. This is why strength sports use scoring like Wilkes scored to compare athletes of different weight.

A child is relatively strong vs the average adult. A child is light and can easily maneuver monkey bars and climb trees. The average adult cannot do this (I realize a fit adult can). But virtually every healthy, normal child can do this.

Everyone should be fit and strong and healthy. That is a no brainer. But what is strength, how do you define it?

1) Do you define being strong as being able to maximize your ability to manipulate external objects in space? Such as lifting a refrigerator or wrestling another human being or pushing a car out of the mud. Then you need to lift more and more weight. Then bulk up and get big!

2) Or do you define strength as being able to maximize your ability to manipulate internal (yourself) objects in space such as being able to jump, run, pushup, pullup, climb a rope, or march from point A to point B, etc...? Then try and stay as small as possible.

3) For most people it is somewhere in the middle of (1) and (2), they want both! Although they may lean 1 way or the other.

Regards,

Eric
 
william bad butt said:
Dont forget the square-cube law. As a person gets bigger, his area increases slower than his volume, so his relative strength always goes down. Imagine a simple shape like a cube with side length equals 1". Assuming constant density, its strength is a function of its cross sectional area, or 1^2=1 square inch. Its weight (at constant density), is a function of its volume, or 1^3= 1 cubic inch. Its relative strength is a function of its area to volume ratio, or 1^2 / 1^3 = 1.

Now imagine this same cube starts lifting weights and swinging kettlebells, and achieves SINISTER! Now the length of the cube is 2"! Double the size! Assuming constant density, its strength is a function of its cross sectional area, or 2^2=4 square inch. Its weight (at constant density), is a function of its volume, or 2^3= 8 cubic inch. Its relative strength is a function of its area to volume ratio, or 2^2 / 2^3 = 0.5.

So this 2nd cube is 4 times (2^2 / 1^2=4) stronger than the 1st cube, on an absolute basis. But the 2nd cube is only half as strong as the 1st cube, on a relative basis ((2^2/2^3)/(1^2/1^3)=0.5).

Example, they claim insects can lift like 50+ times their bodyweight. Impressive! But if an insect were the size of an elephant, it wouldnt be able to even walk on those skinny legs. It would instantly die and be crushed by the force of gravity.

Or a powerlifter or weightlifter. A 2 times bodyweight deadlift of someone weighing 120 lb is less impressive then someone weighing 400 lb. This is why strength sports use scoring like Wilkes scored to compare athletes of different weight.

A child is relatively strong vs the average adult. A child is light and can easily maneuver monkey bars and climb trees. The average adult cannot do this (I realize a fit adult can). But virtually every healthy, normal child can do this.

Everyone should be fit and strong and healthy. That is a no brainer. But what is strength, how do you define it?

1) Do you define being strong as being able to maximize your ability to manipulate external objects in space? Such as lifting a refrigerator or wrestling another human being or pushing a car out of the mud. Then you need to lift more and more weight. Then bulk up and get big!

2) Or do you define strength as being able to maximize your ability to manipulate internal (yourself) objects in space such as being able to jump, run, pushup, pullup, climb a rope, or march from point A to point B, etc...? Then try and stay as small as possible.

3) For most people it is somewhere in the middle of (1) and (2), they want both! Although they may lean 1 way or the other.

Regards,

Eric
Click to expand...
This ^^^

I’m not saying that big dudes can’t do calisthenics, but they progress a LOT slower. It also depends on the movements we’re talking about here.

This is suspiciously close the “Milo of Croton argument.” It might work for a while, but it turns out that you can’t slowly and indefinitely add weight to get stronger . There’s a point at which you get “stuck,” and pretty much have to change things somehow.
 
Training for Life said:
Not disagreeing with you here, but

”Now hypothetically speaking imagine a 300lbs dude who can do 25+ strict non stop one arm chin ups each arm, 30+ strict non stop one arm one leg push ups each arm, 25+ strict non stop deep handstand push ups and 50+ strict nonstop pistol squats each leg, 25+ strict one arm hanging leg raises each arm. ”

Damn I’d love to see this person ha ha!
Click to expand...
Maybe a young Mountain Gorilla, except for the pistols.
 
william bad butt said:
Dont forget the square-cube law. As a person gets bigger, his area increases slower than his volume, so his relative strength always goes down. Imagine a simple shape like a cube with side length equals 1". Assuming constant density, its strength is a function of its cross sectional area, or 1^2=1 square inch. Its weight (at constant density), is a function of its volume, or 1^3= 1 cubic inch. Its relative strength is a function of its area to volume ratio, or 1^2 / 1^3 = 1.

Now imagine this same cube starts lifting weights and swinging kettlebells, and achieves SINISTER! Now the length of the cube is 2"! Double the size! Assuming constant density, its strength is a function of its cross sectional area, or 2^2=4 square inch. Its weight (at constant density), is a function of its volume, or 2^3= 8 cubic inch. Its relative strength is a function of its area to volume ratio, or 2^2 / 2^3 = 0.5.

So this 2nd cube is 4 times (2^2 / 1^2=4) stronger than the 1st cube, on an absolute basis. But the 2nd cube is only half as strong as the 1st cube, on a relative basis ((2^2/2^3)/(1^2/1^3)=0.5).

Example, they claim insects can lift like 50+ times their bodyweight. Impressive! But if an insect were the size of an elephant, it wouldnt be able to even walk on those skinny legs. It would instantly die and be crushed by the force of gravity.

Or a powerlifter or weightlifter. A 2 times bodyweight deadlift of someone weighing 120 lb is less impressive then someone weighing 400 lb. This is why strength sports use scoring like Wilkes scored to compare athletes of different weight.

A child is relatively strong vs the average adult. A child is light and can easily maneuver monkey bars and climb trees. The average adult cannot do this (I realize a fit adult can). But virtually every healthy, normal child can do this.

Everyone should be fit and strong and healthy. That is a no brainer. But what is strength, how do you define it?

1) Do you define being strong as being able to maximize your ability to manipulate external objects in space? Such as lifting a refrigerator or wrestling another human being or pushing a car out of the mud. Then you need to lift more and more weight. Then bulk up and get big!

2) Or do you define strength as being able to maximize your ability to manipulate internal (yourself) objects in space such as being able to jump, run, pushup, pullup, climb a rope, or march from point A to point B, etc...? Then try and stay as small as possible.

3) For most people it is somewhere in the middle of (1) and (2), they want both! Although they may lean 1 way or the other.

Regards,

Eric
Click to expand...
A Jack Russell can jump up on your kitchen island. A Bull Mastiff cannot jump up on the roof of your house.
 
"optimally"

If this word hadn't been included I maybe would have agreed.

Having to train limbs separately isn't optimal mainly due to added training time.

No decent posterior chain movements.

Having to learn new movements rather than adding weight isn't optimal.

Don't get me wrong I'm not against bodyweight but it isn't the best for everything & certainly isn't as optimal as other modalities IMHO
 
Mayukh Sen said:
Now hypothetically speaking imagine a 300lbs dude who can do 25+ strict non stop one arm chin ups each arm, 30+ strict non stop one arm one leg push ups each arm, 25+ strict non stop deep handstand push ups and 50+ strict nonstop pistol squats each leg, 25+ strict one arm hanging leg raises each arm.
Click to expand...
I hope he does not do it everyday, his shoulders will not handle it.

Many people have interesting theories about calisthenics, I just hope that they do not actually do it, or do it in the way that violence their theories so they can be safe/can progress faster, longer.

Chris Sommer and Tim Ferris have a podcast in the past, and the coach mentions that high-level strength moves from gymnastic world (think one arm chins, planche, handstand push up, 90 degree push up...) also require high level of mobility, stability, and maintenance. He also mentions that many stars in calisthenics world/street work out...have great strength, seems like they can do nearly everything then boom, they got bad injuries, and their injuries just stay there for a long time hindering all the strength they have.

Also, (this one is not mentioned by Coach Sommer, but from me), the body not only adapt to a certain load by increasing bodyweight/muscle mass, but also by reducing mass (maybe even muscle).
 
q.Hung said:
Chris Sommer and Tim Ferris have a podcast in the past, and the coach mentions that high-level strength moves from gymnastic world (think one arm chins, planche, handstand push up, 90 degree push up...) also require high level of mobility, stability, and maintenance. He also mentions that many stars in calisthenics world/street work out...have great strength, seems like they can do nearly everything then boom, they got bad injuries, and their injuries just stay there for a long time hindering all the strength they have.
Click to expand...
Apologies for the slight derail, but did they discuss how to prevent these injuries from happening? I have a feeling that Coach Sommer might know a valuable thing or two about that.
 
Training for Life said:
Apologies for the slight derail, but did they discuss how to prevent these injuries from happening? I have a feeling that Coach Sommer might know a valuable thing or two about that.
Click to expand...
The short answer: their injuries occured because they progressed too fast for their tendons to acclimate.

The long answer:
Muscles regenerate something like 3 times faster than tendons, and thus tendons take 3 times longer to regenerate. A "popular" injury in calisthenics is a torn bicep tendon (either prox/or dist) because of the stress placed on it during planche work (back levers can be problematic, too). Other common injuries include medial elbow problems, wrist injuries and all sorts of shoulder injuries.

Sommer was a huge proponent of steady state cycling: basically, start with a moderately challenging intensity/volume, then train it to the point where a high-ish volume of it feels easy. Then progress. It's repetitive and boring, but builds a durable body and long-lasting gains. He was also very vocal about deloading to allow supercompensation to occur.

Many street workout dudes just train all the time. They get strong "fast" because of it, but then suffer the consequences. Many people practicing calisthenics try to train skills that are way too hard for their actual level. Take into mind how in the SF literature, one should be spending most of their training time around 70% capacity. If you're training planche variations to failure multiple days a week at volume, and not giving your body deloads.....well, 1+1=overuse issues.


Ok, end derail :)
 
Training for Life said:
Apologies for the slight derail, but did they discuss how to prevent these injuries from happening? I have a feeling that Coach Sommer might know a valuable thing or two about that.
Click to expand...

The Tim Ferriss Show Transcripts: The Secrets of Gymnastic Strength Training (#158) - The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss

Please enjoy this transcript of my interview with Christopher Sommer, founder of GymnasticBodies (GymnasticBodies on Instagram/Facebook) and former US national team gymnastics coach. Transcripts may contain a few typos—with some episodes lasting 2+ hours, it’s difficult to catch some minor...
tim.blog tim.blog

Here's the script from the podcast. It has lots of great details.
 
Training for Life said:
Not disagreeing with you here, but

”Now hypothetically speaking imagine a 300lbs dude who can do 25+ strict non stop one arm chin ups each arm, 30+ strict non stop one arm one leg push ups each arm, 25+ strict non stop deep handstand push ups and 50+ strict nonstop pistol squats each leg, 25+ strict one arm hanging leg raises each arm. ”

Damn I’d love to see this person ha ha!
Click to expand...
Thanks.


That is exactly my point....


And to reiterate the point in context....


Our bodyweight will simply be enough for us to keep working on hypertrophy and strength of the upperbody forever for the rest of our lives regardless of how strong we get, how good our genetics are, or how much steroid we abuse. We can keep working in the hypertrophy rep range for upperbody forever. All it will take is keep eating for muscle growth aka in surplus, which is the most important thing to do while looking to build muscle and strength with any training modality.


Because we have a limit to your relative strength, that limit itself is what necessitates the formation of new contractile muscle tissue.


Of course, I used the word "hypothetically", so I will let that word work out the plausibility of this idea by itself.
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom