I always thought gymnasts had amazing physiques. Don’t they do pretty much exclusively BW exercises?
[quote]Der Candy wrote:
I always thought gymnasts had amazing physiques. Don’t they do pretty much exclusively BW exercises?[/quote]
Yeah, they have good muscle and probably low amounts of fat, but in any case, they’re not bulky. Body composition can do great things to a physique.
[quote]B.b. in stress! wrote:
conwict wrote:
There is obviously no real gain to doing ONLY bodyweight unless you are a prisoner in a cell with nothing to do.
I forgot to add that I have made 3 lb. individual sandbags (total of ~200 lbs) and I would be using those for various exercises combined with bw exercises
The main reason why I want to switch bw exercises is because I want to have a functional, injury-free body that has been taken away from me by weight lifting throughout the years. Yes, I know you could build a functional body with free weights, but I either have to drive my car there or ride my bike for 15 min. to get there.
I have much better things to do then spend the time/money GETTING TO A GYM whereas my gym is pretty much the Earth anywhere anytime - the convenience CANNOT be beat.[/quote]
Last time I checked, we weight train not because it’s convenient but because it gets results. If you stick to BW exercises only and not gain from them, that’s an even bigger waste of time.
Good idea on the sandbags though. It should provide some source progression.
[quote]Der Candy wrote:
I always thought gymnasts had amazing physiques. Don’t they do pretty much exclusively BW exercises?[/quote]
They do, but they also don’t stay with pushups and pullups. The levers and planche variations become increasingly more difficult as their skill and strength can handle it. They also do extremely controlled negatives, not something you really see often with bodyweight trainees(or any form to be honest). Watch someone on the rings, controlled negatives, extremely aggressive stretch the lats are forced under, and they always have impressive lats. They aren’t eating for size that’s for sure, maybe if someone took SOME lessons from gymnasts(stretches, controlled negatives) and applied them to their training they’d be ahead of the game. Just something to think about.
Isn’t this a subject every other month?
First off it’s easier to do bw exercises the lighter you are. Being that most heavy people can’t start off doing them they don’t continue doing them. Where it might take a week for a 100lb person to build up to doing a pistol, it might take a month or more for a 200lb person who never did it before. Since they are not reaping the benefits until they complete the exercise, how many peopl are going to consistently work on an exercise they can’t do for a month or more while reaping no tangible benefits?
Second more bw people are of the light eating type compared to I eat whatever the fuck I want and lift big heavy weights type. So you combine light eating with already light weight. How big are you going to get?
Contrary to popular belief high reps does build muscle, but the body is only going to allow one muscle to get so big without the rest. Speed skaters, cyclest, sprinters primarily work their thighs. They may not be ronnie colemans size, but if you look at their thighs in comparison to the rest of their bodies you will see proportionately bigger thighs and calfs.
If your going to do bodyweight exercises and you want to gain strength you must eat and push yourself to the limits.
You can get bigger and stronger with bodyweight only training. However, it’s going to depend on your diet (for mass gains) and the level at which you pursue bodyweight training (using different techniques similar to gymnasts).
Not only that, but I believe that if you use bodyweight-only training, you better be traing every day or at least six days out of seven. Most people who use bodyweight-only training are still exercising 3-4 times a week for 30-60 minutes. I don’t think that’s enough in that type of training. With weights, 3-4 days may be plenty, but things are different when relying on bodyweight.
Still, you’re not going to be huge from this type of training, but you can be lean, muscular and very strong if you do it right. Check into Ross Training for good ideas (his books are great!).
[quote]undeadlift wrote:
Here’s one way to look at it. The body’s tendency is to adapt and be more efficient in a particular exercise. Hence, increasing body mass isn’t the best adaptation when it comes to bodyweight exercise performance. The body becomes better at them by getting stronger while staying light (ex. through increased neural and metabolic efficiency), not by getting heavier.[/quote]
Interesting theory. Any references? The reason I ask is - as far as I know - it’s completely untrue.
The body doesn’t magically know if it’s using just body weight or BW + resistance. Push ups vs bench press? Slightly different lifts, but otherwise they both simply involve muscles contracting to move joints against a resistance.
If someone is starting out and cannot do a single pushup, doing pushups (on their knees) will be heavy enough of a resistance exercise to both increase strength and stimulate hypertrophy (if diet is sufficient)
Progression will occur as they gradually increase the angles at their hips and knees (ie progress towards a proper push up), thereby increasing the percentage of their BW which they are moving. Extremely unfit and/or overweight people can start push ups leaning against a wall at a very slight deviation from vertical.
Or take chins or pull ups for example. If what you suggest were true, people would not gain any size from these exercises until they were adding extra resistance. Clearly this is not the case. People who start out unable to do a single chin will be both stronger and have more muscle when they are able to do 10. (Again, if diet is sufficient.)
Of course progression in BW excercises will eventually reach a ceiling at which point the addition of external resistance will be needed in order to make further progress.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Am I being naive, or (was that Ronnie in the beginning?) did Ronnie have shitty form? I know it’s a TON of weight, but the dude didn’t even go down to parallel, let alone ATG…
I remember seeing a video of Cutler working out and he, too, had horrible ROM and form, no doubt because of the heavy weight but still.[/quote]
I’m almost sure he’s doing it for continous tension, he doesn’t lockout until the last rep, that’s a very brutal technique to use, not locking out.
[quote]oldskinnyfat wrote:
<<< Of course progression in BW excercises will eventually reach a ceiling at which point the addition of external resistance will be needed in order to make further progress.[/quote]
Which is the only point any of us are making. If you wanna build some muscle go ahead and do BW exercises. If you want people to notice you workout with your clothes on then lift weights.
It’s like Tirib says: It depends what you mean by being big.
And I’m glad no one has invoked the name of Herschel Walker, who didn’t do much lifting but did shitloads of bodyweight stuff and was fairly yoked. Obviously, Herschel is unique, and this will not work for you. If the average guy lifts big and eats big for a few years, though, he can probably get bigger than Herschel.
If you think an olympic caliber gymnast is big, (which is fine,) you can probably get that way from mostly bodyweight stuff. You will not get huge, though, like a lean 230-240 at 6 ft. or less, unless you get under some real weight.
I find that most of the bodyweight movements (pull-ups, chins & dips being noticeable exceptions) tend to put you in a position of weakness.
The result of this is that instead of just concentrating on pushing as hard as you can with the target muscle(s), you now have to worry about balance. This in turn results in less potential overload for your target muscles and less potential growth.
This is the same reason I think that bodyweight exercises can be a good supplement to weight training as you hit more stabilizing muscles which would carry over, but I wouldn’t consider it a viable alternative unless I had no choice.
It like comparing someone who plants their feet when benching with someone who doesn’t and starts squirming all over the place as soon as things get a little difficult.
You can’t push much when you’re trying not to fall off the bench.
That’s my take on it anyway.
Herschel Walker, All-American college football player and great pro athlete has always been a bodyweight trainer. He changed his leverages, hand positions, etc. Added weight and such to things like pull-ups, and that sort of thing but still just using the bodyweight type movements. In one interview he said he would sometimes do 3000 pushups, 2000 situps, 1000 pullups, 1500 dips, etc. Experimenting when he was young and poor is how he realized you could get a good workout with that stuff.
I have no disdain for bodyweight training and have said before that it’s not worthless. Bodyweight does not = NO muscle, but it does = much less muscle than working with purpose against external resistance.
This whole physical fitness/weightlifting/competitive sport training/powerlifting/olympic lifting world isn’t all that complicated folks. Train for what you want to excel at though there could and should be some crossover for best results.
If you want to be or look like a gymnast then by God train for that. If you want to be impressively strong there are known methods that will in most cases get someone as strong as they can be. If size is your primary goal you have the simplest toolbox of all. Meaning damn near anything can be useful to one degree or another at one time or another, even bodyweight exercises, for stuff like nursing an injury, warming up or mastering form.
My point is, unless you have absolutely no access to equipment why worry about how much muscle can be built without it? Who cares? It’s not necessary that every method be optimal for every goal. Some folks seem to be incurably addicted to convincing others that their favorite way is great for everything. It doesn’t have to, isn’t and never will be that way.
Again, bodyweight training works, as far as it goes and for some pursuits, but isn’t and doesn’t have to be the path to superlative size and strength.
[quote]GetSwole wrote:
Herschel Walker, All-American college football player and great pro athlete has always been a bodyweight trainer. He changed his leverages, hand positions, etc. Added weight and such to things like pull-ups, and that sort of thing but still just using the bodyweight type movements. In one interview he said he would sometimes do 3000 pushups, 2000 situps, 1000 pullups, 1500 dips, etc. Experimenting when he was young and poor is how he realized you could get a good workout with that stuff. [/quote]
I spoke too soon.
[quote]oldskinnyfat wrote:
The body doesn’t magically know if it’s using just body weight or BW + resistance. Push ups vs bench press? Slightly different lifts, but otherwise they both simply involve muscles contracting to move joints against a resistance.[/quote]
Finally, someone points out the flaw of my paradigm. I did say it’s just one way to look at it. I never said it is true. I mean who knows? What if the body can actually do that?
[quote]Ramo wrote:
It’s like Tirib says: It depends what you mean by being big.
And I’m glad no one has invoked the name of Herschel Walker [/quote]
haha sorry missed your post. Apparently I spoke to late. Whatever I like to weight train so who cares lol
[quote]IQ wrote:
I find that most of the bodyweight movements (pull-ups, chins & dips being noticeable exceptions) tend to put you in a position of weakness.
The result of this is that instead of just concentrating on pushing as hard as you can with the target muscle(s), you now have to worry about balance. This in turn results in less potential overload for your target muscles and less potential growth.
This is the same reason I think that bodyweight exercises can be a good supplement to weight training as you hit more stabilizing muscles which would carry over, but I wouldn’t consider it a viable alternative unless I had no choice.
It like comparing someone who plants their feet when benching with someone who doesn’t and starts squirming all over the place as soon as things get a little difficult.
You can’t push much when you’re trying not to fall off the bench.
That’s my take on it anyway.[/quote]
I always thought resistance = resistance but it seems like whenever stability comes into play, muscle gains drop. Otherwise, you’d c bbers using bosu balls and swiss balls every day. This post kinda explained it for me although still a little confused
[quote]B.b. in stress! wrote:
IQ wrote:
I find that most of the bodyweight movements (pull-ups, chins & dips being noticeable exceptions) tend to put you in a position of weakness.
The result of this is that instead of just concentrating on pushing as hard as you can with the target muscle(s), you now have to worry about balance. This in turn results in less potential overload for your target muscles and less potential growth.
This is the same reason I think that bodyweight exercises can be a good supplement to weight training as you hit more stabilizing muscles which would carry over, but I wouldn’t consider it a viable alternative unless I had no choice.
It like comparing someone who plants their feet when benching with someone who doesn’t and starts squirming all over the place as soon as things get a little difficult.
You can’t push much when you’re trying not to fall off the bench.
That’s my take on it anyway.
I always thought resistance = resistance but it seems like whenever stability comes into play, muscle gains drop. Otherwise, you’d c bbers using bosu balls and swiss balls every day. This post kinda explained it for me although still a little confused[/quote]
Resistance IS resistance, but what he’s saying is that you can’t produce as much of it if your resources are being unduly split between contracting against the weight and keeping your balance. Of course you do have to keep your balance pretty much no matter what you’re doing, but many bodyweight exercises require that you devote more of yourself to not falling down.
The more adept you become at these movements the less of an affect this will have, but you’ll never generate as much tension from pistols as you will from heavy squats. That doesn’t mean something like pistols are useless or not challenging, they are not squats or even presses though.
I’m gonna have to agree with oldskinnyfat. Undeadlift, I don’t think there is any magical method the body has of knowing if it’s doing bodyweight exercises or not. If this were the case, (relatively) light exercises like the overhead press wouldn’t do much. Anyone doing bodyweight overhead presses with strict form has some pretty good delts, I’d bet.
Rock climbers get some really significant forearm and back development, gymnasts get some really significant shoulder, arm, and torso development…the old argument “but they aren’t HUGE”/visibly ripped with a poncho on… is irrelevant. They aren’t trying to be. The exercises produce a secondary effect of developing the areas in question to a pretty damned good extent. The same thing, with a good caloric excess and some careful execution, will yield good results.
If the question is BW + resistance, you will only be slightly limited. But as others stated, semantically that isn’t bodyweight only. A 600 lb squat is bodyweight plus resistance!
If the question is bodyweight only, of course you aren’t going to be an elite powerlifter or bodybuilder, but I bet you could potentially exceed most trainees if you pursued it and planned properly. The question is just why you’d handicap yourself. If you really feel lifting heavy for years has handicapped you in some way, it’s probably bad nutrition and bad choices in lifting. Just doing something known as bodyweight exercises, which shares most attributes of externally loaded resistance training, is not going to magically cure your woes.
I thought about this thread for a couple of days before responding. Here’s the deal; we can’t make generalizations on the topic. Some folks do BW but have crappy diets and don’t supplement. Thus their build isn’t going to be all that impressive. However, their are some folks that do BW with an excellent diet and perhaps a good supplement program along with an increasingly challenging program that do have impressive builds.
Will they win the Sandow? No. But will they get the eye of the ladies at the pool? Probably.
We need to keep things in perspective here. I’ll pick on Ronnie for a moment; I’m not impressed. Yes, the man is big. But I’m sorry and don’t mean to piss off any Ronnie fans here…but thats all he is…big. He looks like crap with the gut and the ‘hose shoved up my ass’ look. That is a classic example of what a human being IS NOT supposed to look like. It isn’t natural and it isn’t appealing. I’ll give the man credit though, he can lift some iron. In the total tonnage department, Ronny has me beat by a mile.
BUT
I’ll bet dollars to donuts that I can run circles around him doing Combat Pyramids! So who is stronger? Me or Ronnie? Well the answer is obviously depending on your definition of strength.
Take Sandow for example; if he were a poster here and posted his picture for review, there’s a lot of people who would scoff at him. Ya know…cause he isn’t HUUUUGGGGGEEEE!. But was the man strong? If just HALF the things they say about him are true the man was strength personified.
Our perspective sometimes gets a little skewed because of the mags and competitions. Remember the thread with the picture of Arnold spliced next to Ronnie? Arnold looks GOOD, Ronnie has the air hose up his rear. Arnold looks like a great example whereas if I could take a magic pill and suddenly be as big as Ronnie…I’d take a pass. Don’t get me wrong, I like HUUGGGEE just like everyone else…but it has to be REALLY functional and it has to be pleasing to the eye.
I know a man in his 50’s, he does BW and strand pulling. He would NOT make a mag cover…yet his strength is FAR beyond his 5’5 120’bs frame. He teaches Jujutsu and reguarly wraps up men twice his weight into nice little pretzels. So again…it all depends on our definition of strength.
Is it bulging muscles?
Is it complete functionality?
Is it total endurance?
Is it a combination?
A lot of the old time ‘muscle’ men weren’t very big…but they were strong.
Please don’t be offended at anything I’ve said here, just wanted to point some things out that I thought were important. Simply that we can’t generalize. Thanks.