all posts post new thread

Bodyweight Bone density and body weight exercise

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

Mike Silsby

Level 3 Valued Member
For the past several months I’ve taken a break from the kettlebells and have been doing body weight exercise exclusively which I really enjoy. Since I’m not getting any younger(51) I was thinking about loss of bone density as I get older and wanted to get everyone’s thoughts on whether my body weight exercise would be enough to maintain it or if I need to add in either KB’s or some barbell work? Thanks
 
Based on what I see the astronauts on the space station doing, deadlifts,squats,bench presses against a vacuum canister pulley system for 2.5 hrs a day 6 days a week, I would think it a good idea to add KB's and BB's to your BW program. Easy jogging and walking also helpful.
 
For the past several months I’ve taken a break from the kettlebells and have been doing body weight exercise exclusively which I really enjoy. Since I’m not getting any younger(51) I was thinking about loss of bone density as I get older and wanted to get everyone’s thoughts on whether my body weight exercise would be enough to maintain it or if I need to add in either KB’s or some barbell work? Thanks

I'm just musing here, so this is not an evidenced-based or expert answer, but here are my thoughts. The body doesn't know whether or not you are adding external resistance. It only knows tension that muscles create on the bones. How that tension is created -- by leverage, use of the body's weight, or external resistance from barbells, kettlebells, or other tools, isn't biologically important.

However, 1) it's harder to create adequate tension with bodyweight as opposed to adding with external load, and 2) it's harder to program appropriate progressions with bodyweight. So, barbells and kettlebells are likely more effective towards your goals, if that is a priority.

The body and bones also seem to respond to impact (running, jumping), as far as signaling increases to bone density and other structures. Maybe because impact causes high tension, albeit momentary.

So, like many other questions relative to bodyweight exercises, there's not a generic answer. It depends a lot on how you're doing it. If you are doing Pavel's "Naked Warrior" style training, as taught in SFB, then yes, that is high tension and I think it could be effective relative to bone density. If you're doing generic calisthenics (something you can do 25 reps or more at a time), these are probably not high tension and would be less effective for that purpose.
 
I'm just musing here, so this is not an evidenced-based or expert answer, but here are my thoughts. The body doesn't know whether or not you are adding external resistance. It only knows tension that muscles create on the bones. How that tension is created -- by leverage, use of the body's weight, or external resistance from barbells, kettlebells, or other tools, isn't biologically important.
@Anna C, an interesting musing!

-S-
 
@Anna C I think most of what you said there is spot on but I want to push back on the idea that the body only knows "tension, that the muscles create on the bones".

True, bones only 'know' pressure. But that includes gravity. Hence the above example of astronauts having to train so much. And when you load the body with an external weight, you load ALL of the bones that link the weight to the ground.

A quick look at the research annoyed me because it disagrees with what I'd like to be true. Hate when that happens. Seems bodyweight activities such as running, swimming, soccer etc result in similar bone mineral density compared to lifting weights. At least in some cases and, of course, it's unlikely the lifting groups were Strongfirst trained.

So re:the original question, bodyweight probably fulfills your minimum effective dose for bone density. As long as there's something impact-y in there (soccer beat swimming for lower limb bone density so there's probably some secret sauce in the running/landing part of it).

Personally I'd always include swings and carries for a client who can tolerate them and who is concerned about bone density. Moderate load, very recoverable and doesn't have to take a lot of time if you prefer bodyweight.


 
For the past several months I’ve taken a break from the kettlebells and have been doing body weight exercise exclusively which I really enjoy. Since I’m not getting any younger(51) I was thinking about loss of bone density as I get older and wanted to get everyone’s thoughts on whether my body weight exercise would be enough to maintain it or if I need to add in either KB’s or some barbell work? Thanks

The only way to really know is get a DEXA scan.

I'm 50, had one done in June.

My bone mineral density was in the 95th percentile of 30 year olds (the baseline).

So for age 50, not shabby.
 
Last edited:
The only way to really know is get a DEXA scan.

I'm 50, had one dune in June.

My bone mineral density was in the 95th percentile of 30 year olds (the baseline).

So for age 50, not shabby.
Very poetic, "had one dune in June" I'm going to steal that.
 
Adding 2x week of kB, bb, any resistance training that is external load will significantly impact bone density. This doesn’t need to be fancy. It doesn’t need to be snatches, jerks, etc it can just be 4x50m farmer carries.
As an anecdotal support to my claim, I have had to step away from the majority of my training to have a large hip surgery for developmental hip dysplasia, and bc I have done resistance training my entire life my pelvic bone was so strong that it broke my Orthos chisel. He was slightly annoyed by this, but I credit going into the surgery being able to deadlift 2x+ bw, and all the swings and carries in the world leading up to surgery.
Again, it just needs to be enough to get the desired effect and from research I’ve seen I believe that is 2x/weekly 30-60min.
 
@Anna C I think most of what you said there is spot on but I want to push back on the idea that the body only knows "tension, that the muscles create on the bones".

True, bones only 'know' pressure. But that includes gravity. Hence the above example of astronauts having to train so much. And when you load the body with an external weight, you load ALL of the bones that link the weight to the ground.

A quick look at the research annoyed me because it disagrees with what I'd like to be true. Hate when that happens. Seems bodyweight activities such as running, swimming, soccer etc result in similar bone mineral density compared to lifting weights. At least in some cases and, of course, it's unlikely the lifting groups were Strongfirst trained.

So re:the original question, bodyweight probably fulfills your minimum effective dose for bone density. As long as there's something impact-y in there (soccer beat swimming for lower limb bone density so there's probably some secret sauce in the running/landing part of it).

Personally I'd always include swings and carries for a client who can tolerate them and who is concerned about bone density. Moderate load, very recoverable and doesn't have to take a lot of time if you prefer bodyweight.


In reference to secret sauce in running/landing, I've seen figures in the 1.5-2+ x body weight range for impact on the skeleton during jogging. Impact varies with speed and mechanics etc. When you figure in 1500 or so impacts/steps per mile you get a big number
 
Adding 2x week of kB, bb, any resistance training that is external load will significantly impact bone density. This doesn’t need to be fancy. It doesn’t need to be snatches, jerks, etc it can just be 4x50m farmer carries.
As an anecdotal support to my claim, I have had to step away from the majority of my training to have a large hip surgery for developmental hip dysplasia, and bc I have done resistance training my entire life my pelvic bone was so strong that it broke my Orthos chisel. He was slightly annoyed by this, but I credit going into the surgery being able to deadlift 2x+ bw, and all the swings and carries in the world leading up to surgery.
Again, it just needs to be enough to get the desired effect and from research I’ve seen I believe that is 2x/weekly 30-60min.
Hope you're healing well. A former co-worker who worked as an engineer in a hospital told of observing a back surgery where the "surgeon" used a chisel to "fix" a back vertebrae. He said the force he used was a lot.
 
From what I understand there has to be pressure on the bone, either from a load or from impact.

You can improve muscle attachment strength etc with bodyweight, but without compressive loading of some sort the bone will not become more dense (this has implications for my long-term use of Isometrics that I hadn't considered).
 
I stand corrected after doing a little more looking. Calisthenics, isometrics, improve or maintain bone density as well as weight training for most folks.
 
True, bones only 'know' pressure. But that includes gravity. Hence the above example of astronauts having to train so much. And when you load the body with an external weight, you load ALL of the bones that link the weight to the ground.

Yes, true... I'm thinking that the gravity effect still makes muscles create tension on bones. For instance, unracking a heavy barbell from a squat rack, and just standing there, not moving -- the muscles do have to work a lot harder than they do when you're standing in the exact same position without a load on your shoulders. Same effect with farmer's carries, but these go a little more towards other loaded movements like get-ups, squats, etc.
 
Yes, true... I'm thinking that the gravity effect still makes muscles create tension on bones. For instance, unracking a heavy barbell from a squat rack, and just standing there, not moving -- the muscles do have to work a lot harder than they do when you're standing in the exact same position without a load on your shoulders. Same effect with farmer's carries, but these go a little more towards other loaded movements like get-ups, squats, etc.

Hmm, I hadn't considered the synergy involved with the gravity and the muscle tension 'stacking'.

Certainly something to consider! The fact that astronauts use their muscles a lot but still come back with depleted bone mass inclines me to think that gravity shoulders a bulk of the responsibility. It would be interesting to work out an experiment to allocate responsibility for the various factors.

Might need a Dragon Ball Z-style gravity chamber to really test it out though!
 
Years ago my doctor told me I had to weight train at 80% of my rep max or higher in order to significantly impact bone density. I have no idea if that is true but it's what he said

Edit: I just googled and that does appear to be supported in the research literature
 
Last edited:
Years ago my doctor told me I had to weight train at 80% of my rep max or higher in order to significantly impact bone density. I have no idea if that is true but it's what he said

Edit: I just googled and that does appear to be supported in the research literature

I'm surprised you have a doctor that knows what 80% 1 RM is.

Except for sports medicine doctors, I've found most GPs to have horrible fitness knowledge.
 
I'm surprised you have a doctor that knows what 80% 1 RM is.

Except for sports medicine doctors, I've found most GPs to have horrible fitness knowledge.

He was an octogenarian Pakistani hunchback and quite possibly the sickest looking person I have ever seen outside of a hospital (which did not initially fill me with confidence) but he did know a surprising amount about sports-related issues having, I found out, worked as a doctor for the Pakistan cricket team. And this was back in my death by workout phase so I was injuring myself a lot - neck, shoulder and elbow issues that still bring tears to my eyes.
 
I'm surprised you have a doctor that knows what 80% 1 RM is.

Except for sports medicine doctors, I've found most GPs to have horrible fitness knowledge.
I would concur with this based on my experience over the years.
I have been fortunate to have had access to very good sports medicine doctors over the years. Ones who work with professional teams, olympians, and college athletes. (And some of these even participate at a reasonable level)
Worth their weight in gold...
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom