@mark reifkind The kettlebell aspect is just one where there is a problem. The article is good enough up until the "primary lifts" part, where he makes a good point about primary lifts involving the entire body, yet, then makes an excuse for the bench press. It does not meet the criteria he sets, but he cannot let go of it. He then in "assistance exercises" puts chin-ups as an
ancillary exercise and puts lower squats as assistance exercises, as if there is a magic physiological significance to the parallel squat in powerlifting.
But the most troublesome part is this:
Ancillary exercises ... anything done on one leg or with one hand, ... don't qualify as basic exercises, because they can't be Trained for long-term progress – they can only be Exercised.
And that is wrong. The body is not a mechanical device. Its limbs, its "Core", etc are important. The world is not a powerlifting platform.
And then later:
I think it's important to be able to fall down when you do a barbell exercise so that you have to make sure you don't. The balance aspects of the movement are critical to the training effect, and when this is removed you're left with a Glorified Exercise. Leg presses are a good example of a Glorified Exercise, but I'll admit that some bodybuilders have used them successfully to build massive legs.
But the bench press is excused from this, and chinups and one limb lifts are excluded.
Likewise, bodyweight-only exercises like sit-ups, push-ups, burpees, air squats, one-legged squats, handstand push-ups, bodyweight dips, exercises done on rings, and kettlebell exercises – any exercise whose loading variable is the number of reps or the length of the set, and which doesn't have a 1RM – can't drive a strength improvement.
And this is wrong. First, he overly simplified bodyweight only exercises and kettlebell exercises (bodyweight only exercises can be made progressively harder other than the length of the set or the number of reps), and he does not see the difference between a pushup and handstand pushup or a one legged squat and a burpee. They are all the same to him. Imagine what he would do if people repping out reverse curls on a barbell were seen as doing the same thing as people doing heavy barbell squatting...
This is because after about 10 reps, and depending on your bodyweight, they're not limited by your force production ability – they simply become endurance exercises. Their repetitive nature means they're inherently sub-maximal in terms of force production. They can't make you stronger unless you're very weak, and they can't continue to make you stronger for more than a couple of weeks even if you are.
That applies to a single variation of a single exercise. But calisthenics is far more than that. Speed is a factor to consider.
Can you swing a set of 5 with a 300-pound kettlebell? And if you can, what made you that strong, kettlebells or squats? Even very useful ancillary movements such as chin-ups have a limited ability to continue to strengthen for long periods of time. And none of them get you strong for as long as your squat does.
Just because he has not sought to continually improve the chin-up (all his squatters better be able to do weighted one arm chinups for reps, otherwise, his observation is merely "chinups are not for strength because we do not train them").
And the rest is along the same vein.
His article is not about strength itself, but a very particular sport specific requirement.
I personally find calisthenics and one limbed lifts to be the first tools in strength. Being competitive in powerlifting (or any other sport) comes second, and I do not think he sees that.
Maybe his perspective is from a very culturally valued aspect of strength training (in the USA, powerlifting and bodybuilding are big, and gymnastics and Olympic weightlifting are lesser at the moment) and his personal experiences and values as a powerlifter. But I think he is doing himself and anybody who listens to him a great disservice by dismissing very valuable tools, and different measures of strength. I can easily find a more pure application of his own principles from that article. He is clearly having good ideas, but shoehorning his powerlifting into it. Strength does not require a barbell set and a squat rack and I bet those who mastered advanced calisthenics and one limbed lifts would be stronger in more tests than those who did only what he advocated.