I’ll be showing my age here for a moment, but I’d like to give an illustration of what I was talking about above. For those old enough to remember the Michael Douglas show back in the 70’s; there was a man dressed up as a Gladiator on a slowly turning raised platform above the stage. He was, I’m guessing maybe 180lbs. He was muscular but not by mag cover standards. He was however chisled like granite. He did various acrobatics on the raised platform but what I remember most was him taking the Roman short sword out and placing it point down in the middle of the spinning platform and then raising his entire body by one hand till he was upside down.
THAT IS STRENGTH.
Could the man bench 315? I don’t know. Was he strong? Yes. Did he look physically good? He did in my opinion and made a lasting impression. I don’t mean to dog Ronnie, the man has worked hard along with being a major drug abuser. Maybe thats my beef with him but thats another thread. But given the choice, my personal goal is to look more like the Gladiator of my youth than Ronnie of my present.
Hope that makes some type of sense to someone. BW, strands, weights etc all have a valid place in a good program along with diet and supplementation.
This thread asked the question if bodyweight exercise = no muscle? The answer remains NO. Bodyweight exercises do not equal no muscle. The answer still however remains also NO, they will not build as much muscle or strength as working against weighted resistance as a whole. Eugene Sandow did not get as strong as he was with bodyweight exercises.
[quote]TRAJJ wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I agree, some do have impressive builds. But, the ones that wind up with impressive builds also often times have the best genetic make up for building an impressive build in the first place, and are generally elite level athletes.
People like to point at professional gymnasts and rock climbers (or even your example of the Gladiator in the other post) as examples of how bodyweight exercises can build impressive physiques. And to a certain extent you’re right.
But, for a person with average genetic potential, they’re just never going to get to the point where they can do an iron cross press to inverted cross in perfect balance and control. Those guys are in the olympics because they’re the cream of the crop, the best genetic/athletic specimens in the sport.
So, they’re really not good examples IMO.
That is such a subjective statement. Not sure if you’re aware of this or not, but there are women out there who find bodybuilders attractive. There are also women who find fat guys attractive. There are even women out there who find waif guys attractive. Suggesting that someone who does bodyweight exercises will attract more attention than traditional exercises is a flawed argument.
Nope, sorry. Ronnie is stronger than you. Strength is defined as the muscle/individual’s maximal ability to produce force. Ronnie has you “beat by a mile” as you stated above. You probably have him beat in the endurance department though (if you can indeed run circles around him during those conditioning drills).
I’d agree with you there. But, he also wasn’t a BW guy. He also was bodybuilding before just about anyone else was. He had no prior experience or examples to draw information from. So, it’s not really fair to use him as an example. If sandow had lived in current times, I’d bet you he’d have been considerably bigger (and probably stronger) than he was.
I’d agree with the first part of this statement (though looks are completely subjective). But, I honestly really am beginning to hate the term “functional”.
Ronnie has won the Sandow trophy as many times as any other person in history (more than Arnold). Since his desired function is to win that trophy, I’d have to say that his physique is as “functional” as it gets.
Also, let’s say that the desired function was to deadlift 800 lbs, once again I’d have to say that judging by his vid up on Youtube of him doing just that (for 3 reps) he’s pretty “functional” in that concern as well.
Good for him, but his skill in jiu-jitsu has nothing to do with his strength. I know smaller (one being around 145-155 lbs) guys who are decently strong, and really strong for their size as well. But those guys aren’t going to blow smoke up your ass and tell you that they’re stronger than guys like coleman.
Not in most cases.
Depends on the function.
No such thing, endurance, like strength has a component of specificity. An anaerobic endurance athlete (like say a wrestler) won’t beat an aerobic endurance athlete (like a marathon runner) at their chosen disciple. The reverse is also true.
I’d say it’s a combination of skill, experience, technique, specific conditioning, flexibility, and yes probably some strength thrown in there as well.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
Actually if you look at most old time muscle men, they were quite large individuals. Sandow was actually an exception, not the rule. Also, guys like Lelane who were incredible athletes and did some ridiculous feats of endurance (and some pretty decent bodyweight feats as well) were definitely fit and strong for their size. But, they were no where near the strength of guys like Paul Anderson. That guy was a BIG BOY, and to this day still holds quite possibly the most impressive (from a strength standpoint) lift of all time.
I’m also not offended by anything that you said, I just don’t agree with some of your lines of thinking. If someone wants to do BW exercises than have at it. I’ve done them in the past, and got up to a decent level of difficulty.
Did it put some muscle on my frame? Yes. Did it put as much as I wanted it to? No. Has traditional weight training put more on my frame than the bodyweight stuff? Yes. And that’s all I think anyone is arguing.
You make some good points. Perhaps I’m guilty of generalizing here a bit as well. let me back up and say this; will BW give a person a pretty good build overall? Yes, it can if other factors such as diet etc are also up to par. Will it get you as big/muscular/cut etc as weights…probably not overall.
I do think there are different ‘types’ of strength; maximal, endurance etc. BW would be more towards the endurance end of the spectrum.
And yes, you are correct that Sandow lifted as well, I’d forgotten about that. Appreciate the refresher
And again, for the Ronnie fans; the man is big/strong. He has worked hard for what he has achieved. I don’t mean to take that away from him. I just have an issue with ‘how’ it was achieved in part i.e. drugs. Would the man be huge without them? Yes. I don’t think what he has achieved is worth what may affect his health as he gets older. Thats just my take, YMMV. I would be more impressed with him or anyone who maybe isn’t ‘quite’ as big but did so naturally and can live to a ripe old age.
You make some good points. Perhaps I’m guilty of generalizing here a bit as well. let me back up and say this; will BW give a person a pretty good build overall? Yes, it can if other factors such as diet etc are also up to par. Will it get you as big/muscular/cut etc as weights…probably not overall.
I do think there are different ‘types’ of strength; maximal, endurance etc. BW would be more towards the endurance end of the spectrum.
And yes, you are correct that Sandow lifted as well, I’d forgotten about that. Appreciate the refresher
And again, for the Ronnie fans; the man is big/strong. He has worked hard for what he has achieved. I don’t mean to take that away from him. I just have an issue with ‘how’ it was achieved in part i.e. drugs. Would the man be huge without them? Yes. I don’t think what he has achieved is worth what may affect his health as he gets older. Thats just my take, YMMV. I would be more impressed with him or anyone who maybe isn’t ‘quite’ as big but did so naturally and can live to a ripe old age.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
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.[/quote]
I keep forgetting that bbing is a sport of contracting muscles against resistance, not movements like sports. contracting muscles and trying to balance urself are too different things. Now I feel a bit stupid by starting this thread because I’m really not into size anymore so I really shouldn’t care about what grows the muscles the most. The fact of the matter is, like CT said, choose between size OR strength. Both paths require different training methods and bw vs. free weights is no different.
Thank you guys for all the help. I will be choosing my path now…
[quote]B.b. in stress! wrote:
I keep forgetting that bbing is a sport of contracting muscles against resistance, not movements like sports. contracting muscles and trying to balance urself are too different things. Now I feel a bit stupid by starting this thread because I’m really not into size anymore so I really shouldn’t care about what grows the muscles the most. The fact of the matter is, like CT said, choose between size OR strength. Both paths require different training methods and bw vs. free weights is no different.
Thank you guys for all the help. I will be choosing my path now…[/quote]
As you’re not interested in size (which is fine IMO) what exactly is your goal?
If it’s performance, you don’t have to use only bodyweight exercises.
If it’s health, you don’t have to use only bodyweight exercises.
I think you should consider why you want to use bodyweight exercises exclusively and then ask yourself if that’s the best way to achieve your goal.
I’m not trying to change your mind however, “because I feel like it”, “I’m bored of lifting weights” or “I want to get better at bodyweight exercises” are all valid reasons in my book.
Trying to convince yourself that it’s a superior method when it may not be (depending on your goal) is a recipe for disappointment, if you make a decision you have to own it and the consequences (or in this case the results) of that decision.
