all posts post new thread

Bodyweight Random Musing

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

JohnDoeman

Level 3 Valued Member
So I am just randomly considering the muscle building power of calisthenics and I wondered something.

Lets say that a big guy (like me) decides to do calisthenics and instead of doing higher rep stuff, he does lower rep and higher intensity movements. Does the muscle building potential increase because he his heavier? I always run across all these transformation stories of heavy guys losing a bunch of weight doing calisthenics. But what if they instead work towards staying big and using calisthenics to build muscle? Could a 250lbs fat guy become 250lbs of muscle?

Yet another attack from my brain... Ha!
 
I'd say it's generally a mistake to think of calisthenics as a weight loss mechanism. Calisthenics is by nature about building strength. Pretty much anything is a weight loss program when you have a lot of weight to lose. I would postulate that any big guys who have lost a lot of weight going to calisthenics probably could have loss that weight on any strength building program (and diet) that they actually stick to. Barbell lifters don't have to be big and doughy.

To me, what differentiates calisthenics from other modalitites is the type of skill and mobility involved, not a weight management quality. You can get very strong doing more difficult calisthenics progressions, and you can control your weight with a barbell-based program (for whatever crap we give them, crossfit folks is skinny).

Guess I haven't really answered the question, but I think there might be a flaw in the mindset of the question.
 
I'm aware that you can also lose weight and such on nearly any fitness routine and that when you've got a lot of fat to lose it comes off rather rapidly for a while and nearly anything will work. The true question here is if the goal was NOT weight-loss like many calisthenics transformations tout, but instead bodybuilding. Could you utilize that extra "fat" as added "resistance" to build more muscle. This in contrast to a smaller guy with no fat trying to build muscle with calisthenics.

I guess I bring this up because my own weight seems to stay constant despite visual physique changes. So I am considering that the heavier "weight" I have on me creates more of a muscle building environment so I will likely not lose "weight" per se but instead build more muscle and thus not change my weight.
 
Well there are definitely calisthenics bodybuilders out there.

Calisthenics is one way to do resistance training. Other ways are barbells, kettlebells, and so on. In this case the resistance is your bodyweight itself. So if you are heavier, you will have more weight to move, and that can be programmed for hupertrophy like anything else.

It probably gets tricky if your method goes in the direction of harder variations or odd leverages, as opposed to high volume of basic exercises.
 
I think if you choose the correct difficulty of exercise you can target any goal. With bigger guys, that might be a more basic exercise than some of the lighter, skinnier guys would need - Some people get a better workout from a basic pushup or pullup than others.
 
It depends what you mean by "250 lbs fat guy". The fat is not going to be magically transformed into muscle just by doing calisthenics.
If you want to lose fat you will have to create an energy deficit.
But of course it is mire difficult to do dips or pullups @250lbs bodyweight as opposed to 220.
If you enjoy calisthenics then absolutely go for it.
Another benefit of calisthenics: you learn to own your bodyweight. If you can knock out multiple pullups, dips, etc you somehow "earned" being a "250 lbs fat guy".
 
I have observed being heavier keeps my bodyweight the same regardless of composition. I've noticed the tipping point to be ~220 lbs. Heavier and its easy to stay heavier, lighter and its easier to be lighter. Not sure if it's a leverage/resistance contribution or simply genetic though.
 
@Marc - This I do agree, if you're big but strong even in relative terms than the question does become moot. I personally will likely always hover around 250 and despite me really eating clean and being mindful of portions I do not seem to lose "weight" per se but instead my body composition changes.

@WhatWouldHulkDo - That is the perfect excuse!

@Bro Mo - I've watched videos of a jacked bodybuilder doing muscle-ups (think like 14 of them in a row) and he weighted like 250lbs or more. Guess I will be striving to be in that realm despite my size (minus the huge, bulky bodybuilder body).
 
I seem to always feel compelled to point out, in discussions of big people seeming to always need to stay their current size, that much of the world goes hungry every day, and even attaining a weight many of us might consider downright skinny isn’t something they do for the simple reason that they don’t take in enough food.

There’s nothing wrong with a conscious decision to remain at a certain weight, but _anyone_ can lose weight by eating less.

My point is that one shouldn’t just give up and say, “I’m always going to weigh <number>.” It’s a thing any of us can change if we choose to and then have the strength of will to embark on a journey to our new weight.

JMO, YMMV.

-S-
 
Bro Mo said:
To a point. Genetics make some people big and some people small regardless of their diets though. I wouldn't ever expect to see a draft horse weigh what a quarter horse weighs with the same diet and at the same level of health.
Click to expand...
At least in America, I would overemphasize the “what/how much” is eaten and for the most part ignore genetics.

Not to say that genetics don’t play a role. But our country is very emotional about food/weight, is rife with all kinds of excuses regarding the two. The majority of people I hear discuss weight tend to think themselves a victim of (insert excuse here) and will not take even a half-inch meaningful step to prove to themselves otherwise.

So while both genetics and activity level do affect ones weight.....I wouldn’t put ANY blame on them at all as my personal way to dispel “fat logic.”

Too big? That’s a kitchen problem. Want abs? Kitchen problem. Get more muscle definition? Kitchen problem.

Its almost all kitchen problems. But marketing/propaganda and money and (in my opinion) bribes have made it so that culturally it’s taboo to say ANYthing is a kitchen problem, and just run more because cardio or whatever.

So yeah....I agree with @Steve Freides
 
What are the current thought's on the idea of a "set point" - the idea that the body tries to stay at a certain weight and resists change?
 
Neuro-Bob said:
Too big? That’s a kitchen problem. Want abs? Kitchen problem. Get more muscle definition? Kitchen problem.
Click to expand...

This. My little data point; I'm a big guy (230#), reasonably strong, and train very regularly. But I know I'm carrying around at least 40# that I don't need - because my brother, who has a very similar body type and bone structure but is an inch taller, is around 180#. He doesn't train much at all, but he's militant about what he eats. Yeah, I'm stronger than him, but I've got no illusion that all my extra weight is all strength - not when I read about all the smaller guys on this forum who have me beat.

When you have a lot of weight to lose, anything will take a lot off. But you eventually reach a point where you can't out-train the kitchen. That's where I'm at.

But, I love me some cheeseburgers, so it is what it is.
 
WhatWouldHulkDo said:
But, I love me some cheeseburgers, so it is what it is.
Click to expand...
And to this I would say....it’s probably the bun, fries, and beer that go along with said cheeseburger that are the issue.

The cheese and the meat itself are the best thing I could eat to lose weight.

I ate only fatty meat/animal products over the summer....easiest way to lost some pounds and lean out ever. No crazy cravings because no empty carbs that “pretend” to fill one up while actually triggering hunger.

I actually read an interesting book by Newbold - the Type A Type B weight loss book written in the 1990s. In a sentence, it proposed that overeating and obesity were a form of food allergy.

Ever have a tasty tortilla chip, then one more, then suddenly the bag is empty? He supposed that it was because of an “allergy” to tortilla chips (or an ingredient there) that essentially debilitated the “I’m hungry/I’m full” hormone cycle, and allowed mindless eating forever.

Proposed treatment? He put all patients on a strict red meat only diet. Plenty complained, going through an adaptation period that we would call “Keto flu” colloquially - he described it as trying to break an addiction and going through withdrawal. He found plenty of common “food allergies” that lead to overeating, and the majority of people did best on red meat only without any allergic reaction to it.

I’m not sure I’m qualified to strongly evaluate the science behind it. However, it’s impossible for me to overeat on red meat, whereas I could easily go through several family sized bags of smart foods white cheddar popcorn in a day without even trying.

I believe there is SOMETHING LIKE a food allergy going on there, for lack of a better term.
 
Neuro-Bob said:
Ever have a tasty tortilla chip, then one more, then suddenly the bag is empty? He supposed that it was because of an “allergy” to tortilla chips (or an ingredient there) that essentially debilitated the “I’m hungry/I’m full” hormone cycle, and allowed mindless eating forever.
Click to expand...
I believe it has to do with leptin and ghrelin.
 
Bro Mo said:
I believe it has to do with leptin and ghrelin.
Click to expand...
The hungry/full hormones, if I understand them correctly? Yes his theory was that people essentially had “allergies” where certain foods would inhibit the natural balancing/process between the two.
 
A lot of interesting comments here. Seems the ones who truly live the life of a bigger guy tend to lean towards the genetics while those who are naturally thin seem to point the finger at the kitchen. I've run the gambit from light (155lbs) to heavy (250lbs). I was 200lbs when I went to Afghanistan. I dropped to about 185 by the time I left a year later. Despite great effort and extremely clean eating I shot right back up to 200lbs. I gained 30lbs after leaving the Marines (my fault swearing off running for a long time) and since then I've crept up despite trying to control it. I believe the problem is far more complex than one side or the other.

And yet, since their are starving people all over the world the discussion is trivial. Hell, may as well trivialize everything we do in life because we will all eventually die, some maybe sooner than later.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom