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.)
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.


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.
 
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
As if to make my point..... (And I thank you for your detailed explanation, I obtained valuable knowledge from it so thank you very much....)


Our bodyweight will forever be more than enough to provide ample resistance to our upper body for optimal hypertrophy and strength. Now that we know even weights that are up to our 35-40 rep max can deliver same hypertrophy as 6-10 rep max weights if lifted till muscular failure.


And the reason you have explained very eloquently in your reply.


The reason I felt the need to post this is because there are so many people in the covid situation that dont value calisthenics as an equally effective tool to build strength and muscle and worrying about access to a gym.
 
I think a set of rings & weight vest / backpack can push the value even further.
 
I think a set of rings & weight vest / backpack can push the value even further.
Weighted one arm push ups.


Between two high tables of equal height. Pressing hand on one table, feet on another, and a sack full of sand hangs from your non working arm, which dips between the space between two tables.


Weighted one arm pull ups.


Just hang a sack of sand from the non working arm.



This is similar to one arm dumbbell rows. Great for hypertrophy.



And yeah, of course rings and weighted vests are cool but they are not NEEDED.
 
The reason I felt the need to post this is because there are so many people in the covid situation that dont value calisthenics as an equally effective tool to build strength and muscle and worrying about access to a gym.
I think calisthenics are often skipped over by people because they're honestly very difficult and magnify areas of weakness.
 
Before moving arms or changing leverage, you could simply try to get the max reps up to 30 rep max, and then see if that next progression is still difficult.
Unfortunately this winds up being a heap of volume training = a lot of time and a lot of repetitive joint movement.

Thought experiment - imagine recommending a barbell program where you don't add plates to an exercise until you can hit 30 reps at current loading. It doesn't exist.

Calisthenics are a great way to train, but ultimately you wind up working around the peculiarities and limitations of the mode as a challenge in itself rather than as a simple way to improve overall fitness. Which is fine, all modes have their own qualities - but I would not ever push bodyweight only as an optimal training approach except maybe at the very high and low ends of the spectrum. At the low end it is simple and effective, at the high end is super challenging. That leaves a lot of middle ground where the average person will make substantially greater gains using external loading of some sort.
 
Hello,

Eventually, I think we do not have to be 'religious' about a tool or another and simply say 'bodyweight is better' or 'kb is better'.

To a certain extent, we can say that one modality may be better adapted to a specific goal, for someone, assuming the person's constraints and variables.

If you want to compete in powerlifting for instance, it may be worth to work on specifics

In almost all cases one can get better by following the right principles. As an example, SF blog is full of articles to increase OVH press with both bdw and kb. Is one modality better ?

My best results came from mixing modalities (bdw, sandbag, kb) and programming (a lot of daily variations such as in CrossFit) while following SF principles

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
I don't get the logic behind making up a scenario for a lean 300lbs calisthenics athlete given that there have been mutants out there who rep out with +200kg in the bench press and +300kg squats/deadlift while taking a bunch of drugs and trying to get as muscular as possible without getting there themselves.

It's a bit like saying that KBs are all you could ever need for strength and size because one could do stuff like +25 rep presses, pistol squats and pull ups with Beasts.
 
Last edited:
It's a bit like saying that KBs are all you could ever need for strength and size because one could do stuff like +25 rep presses, pistol squats and pull ups with Beasts.
Good point!

It's also worth mentioning that many "elite" calisthenics athletes start using weighted moves at a certain point, or even using things overhead pressing to make their handstand pushups stronger because the acknowledge that it's simpler to add weight. Some out there also recommend using weighted pullups, dips etc before even attempting things like OAP, levers, etc. It's a simpler approach to get your weighted pullups pretty strong before trying front lever variations, for instance.
 
Hello,

I second @bluejeff

When I wanted to get the OAPU, I used the following progression:
regular > feet elevated > weighted > elevation + weight > OAP

Using a weight or an elevation is often easier as it is a tangible number, independent from RPE (which varies under fatigue for instance), easy to scale.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
Before moving arms or changing leverage, you could simply try to get the max reps up to 30 rep max, and then see if that next progression is still difficult.
Best comment I have read so far. This is a very valid advice because we do know that lifting weights that are up to 30 rep max, till failure, for sure causes equal hypertrophy as 8 rep max weights taken to failure.



Of course, as you are gaining reps, each rep is getting lighter, which means you are getting stronger, so long as you are at maintenance or surplus in case of calisthenics only training
 
Unfortunately this winds up being a heap of volume training = a lot of time and a lot of repetitive joint movement.

Thought experiment - imagine recommending a barbell program where you don't add plates to an exercise until you can hit 30 reps at current loading. It doesn't exist.

Calisthenics are a great way to train, but ultimately you wind up working around the peculiarities and limitations of the mode as a challenge in itself rather than as a simple way to improve overall fitness. Which is fine, all modes have their own qualities - but I would not ever push bodyweight only as an optimal training approach except maybe at the very high and low ends of the spectrum. At the low end it is simple and effective, at the high end is super challenging. That leaves a lot of middle ground where the average person will make substantially greater gains using external loading of some sort.
It doesnt exist because you have the option of adding weight to the bar.



Even Pavel Tsatsouline has a slow twitch hypertrophy protocol for us to follow. You know, the guy who values low rep work over everything else? The victor sulianov slow twitch hypertrophy protocol put on over 25 percent on the max lifts of late intermediate trainees who would later go on to become elite powerlifters, IN A MATTER OF 8 WEEKS.



So doing work in that rep range certainly does have strength benefits.



The barbell programs from the US didnt factor that in because the option of adding weight was always available.



However in the soviet union, a country far more advanced in terms of sports science, did recognize the value of light weight work for promoting strength and hypertrophy using barbells. That was the Sulianov slow twitch protocol in the flesh.



So, in other words, no disrespect but, one of the most celebrated barbell strength programs, aka the sulianov slow twitch protocol, uses 30+ rep max weights. So I must say, sir, that I cant fully agree with your statement.
 
Hello,

Eventually, I think we do not have to be 'religious' about a tool or another and simply say 'bodyweight is better' or 'kb is better'.

To a certain extent, we can say that one modality may be better adapted to a specific goal, for someone, assuming the person's constraints and variables.

If you want to compete in powerlifting for instance, it may be worth to work on specifics

In almost all cases one can get better by following the right principles. As an example, SF blog is full of articles to increase OVH press with both bdw and kb. Is one modality better ?

My best results came from mixing modalities (bdw, sandbag, kb) and programming (a lot of daily variations such as in CrossFit) while following SF principles

Kind regards,

Pet'
I couldn't agree more. A serious strength athlete would be benefitted the most, by mixing these three different types pf modalities.



But since you move your body through space on calisthenics, and that does seem to have a hormonal and neurological advantage in terms stimulating hypertrophy and all other facets of physical qualities that extend even up to cardio........


As the russian scientists stated to be the reason why squats are superior to leg presses.... And I will link more details if I find anyone curious on the matter.....



I would argue that in the absence of external weights due to your given situation..... You couldn't have a more compelling reason than to indulge yourself in bodyweight training to keep increasing your strength forever, without ever having to worry about any additional weight as a necessity.
 
It doesnt exist because you have the option of adding weight to the bar.



Even Pavel Tsatsouline has a slow twitch hypertrophy protocol for us to follow. You know, the guy who values low rep work over everything else? The victor sulianov slow twitch hypertrophy protocol put on over 25 percent on the max lifts of late intermediate trainees who would later go on to become elite powerlifters, IN A MATTER OF 8 WEEKS.



So doing work in that rep range certainly does have strength benefits.



The barbell programs from the US didnt factor that in because the option of adding weight was always available.



However in the soviet union, a country far more advanced in terms of sports science, did recognize the value of light weight work for promoting strength and hypertrophy using barbells. That was the Sulianov slow twitch protocol in the flesh.



So, in other words, no disrespect but, one of the most celebrated barbell strength programs, aka the sulianov slow twitch protocol, uses 30+ rep max weights. So I must say, sir, that I cant fully agree with your statement.
Is this the "The Quick and the Dead: Total Training for the Advanced Minimalist" programme?
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom