what do you think?
Printable View
what do you think?
Weights.
why
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811789151]why[/QUOTE]
Weights for bodybuilding or strength training
Calistenics for weight loss, toning, crossfit indurance or arobic workouts
Then was the last time a Calistenics trainer won a bb comp?
For what? It depends on your goals. If you're going for size, its all about breaking down muscle fibers in the body through the appropriate methods and resting and eating so the muscle recovers and overcompensates. Can you do this with calisthenics? To a degree, yes. But there are several issues:
-When you add weight to calisthenics, are they still calisthenics? If so then its not a problem in this regard. Otherwise you'll eventually find you're doing these bodyweight exercises for more reps than what's optimal for growth. You can't just keep adding reps forever and expect it to work as well as increasing the weight used over time. The other problem is:
-Lack of exercises. So there's pull ups, push ups, dips, hand stand push ups etc, but what about parts of the body like the legs? Bodyweight squats won't cut it, and one legged squats won't work for long. There's also very few isolation exercises that one can do with calisthenics. Sure, compounds are more important but its pointless pretending that isolation exercises don't play a part in building a good physique.
If you want to get good at calisthenics, then obviously you'll want to train using calisthenics.
Both
Versus is too black and white....
A combination of both can give you great results.
After some time, resistance WILL be required to advance.
Here's what I think. Both are important. In terms of athletic ability, calisthenics would probably be more superior than lifting heavy weights. If you want to be a competitive bodybuilder, including both techniques will lead to the best all around gains. In terms of bodybuilding as a lifestyle (non competitive) the two most important factors are eating the right amount of calories and putting stress on your muscles. It doesn't matter if you weight lift or do calisthenics. As long as you are putting stress on your muscles, constantly increasing that stress, and eating enough, you will increase muscle mass and therefore build your body, hence bodybuilding. There are definitely better ways of doing it but these are the fundamentals.
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811878541]In terms of athletic ability, calisthenics would probably be more superior than lifting heavy weights. [/quote]
If bigger, faster, stronger is the goal, then this is not true.
Also, what do you mean "in terms of athletic ability"? Do you mean "in preparation for a sport"?
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811878541]If you want to be a competitive bodybuilder, including both techniques will lead to the best all around gains. [/quote]
I might be totally off-base here, but I don't think competitive bb'ers are too much into jumping jacks.
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811878541]
In terms of bodybuilding as a lifestyle (non competitive) the two most important factors are eating the right amount of calories and putting stress on your muscles.[b] It doesn't matter if you weight lift or do calisthenics. [/b]As long as you are putting stress on your muscles, constantly increasing that stress, and eating enough, you will increase muscle mass and therefore build your body, hence bodybuilding. [/QUOTE]
[img]http://xbradtc.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/facepalm.jpg[/img]
Also...
[img]http://images0.cafepress.com/image/53787980_125x125.png[/img]
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811878541]Here's what I think. Both are important. In terms of athletic ability, calisthenics would probably be more superior than lifting heavy weights. If you want to be a competitive bodybuilder, including both techniques will lead to the best all around gains. In terms of bodybuilding as a lifestyle (non competitive) the two most important factors are eating the right amount of calories and putting stress on your muscles. It doesn't matter if you weight lift or do calisthenics. As long as you are putting stress on your muscles, constantly increasing that stress, and eating enough, you will increase muscle mass and therefore build your body, hence bodybuilding. There are definitely better ways of doing it but these are the fundamentals.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much this.
[QUOTE=Lencho;811942421]Also, what do you mean "in terms of athletic ability"? Do you mean "in preparation for a sport"?[/QUOTE]
"ath·lete
n.
A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as STRENGH, AGILITY, AND ENDURANCE, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts."
That is the definition of athlete from dictionary.com.
What I mean by athletic ability is the ability to contain all of those aspects (being an all around good athlete). Lifting weights is great. I'm not downing it. I know that most, if not all, sports involve weight training, but for those of us who may be pressed for time and want to either do one or the other, I would lean towards calisthenics being a better choice to prepare someone for a large variety of sports.
[QUOTE=Lencho;811942421]I might be totally off-base here, but I don't think competitive bb'ers are too much into jumping jacks.[/QUOTE]
I was leaning more towards pushups, dips, and pullups rather than jumping jacks, although, jumping jacks make a great warm up for even the professional. That said, I would still consider weighted pullups, dips, and pushups to be calisthenics.
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811956971]"ath·lete
n.
A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as STRENGH, AGILITY, AND ENDURANCE, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts."
That is the definition of athlete from dictionary.com.
What I mean by athletic ability is the ability to contain all of those aspects (being an all around good athlete). Lifting weights is great. I'm not downing it. I know that most, if not all, sports involve weight training, but for those of us who may be pressed for time and want to either do one or the other, I would lean towards calisthenics being a better choice to prepare someone for a large variety of sports.[/quote]
Sounds like you're talking about average dudes that are just trying to be average.
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811956971]
I was leaning more towards pushups, dips, and pullups rather than jumping jacks, although, jumping jacks make a great warm up for even the professional. That said, I would still consider [b]weighted[/b] pullups, dips, and pushups to be calisthenics.[/QUOTE]
I think the word "weighted" changes the definition.
[QUOTE=Lencho;811960021]Sounds like you're talking about average dudes that are just trying to be average.[/QUOTE]
I'm just talking about people in general.
Calisthenics are better for real life application and tend to be safer. Why do you think the military focuses mainly on them?
[QUOTE=Lencho;811960021]I think the word "weighted" changes the definition.[/QUOTE]
Calisthenics are "Gymnastic exercises to achieve bodily fitness and grace of movement."
Calisthenics are calisthenics no matter how much weight you have on you. Wouldn't wearing a weighted vest while doing pullups be the same as a heavy person doing pullups? Either way, the definition describes it as a movement. I don't think adding weight changes that.
[QUOTE=Lencho;811942421]If bigger, [b]faster[/b], stronger is the goal, then this is not true. [/quote]
Kind of a gray area there. Weight lifters will probably have persistent stamina, but calisthenics would probably provide quicker reflexes and audible coordination. Calisthenics might actually provide better persistence with endurance also.
To make it clear. I love lifting weights and I think they are great.
I just think calisthenics have their advantages, as does weight lifting in certain situations.
[QUOTE=GeneralSerpant;811966201]Kind of a gray area there. Weight lifters will probably have persistent stamina, but calisthenics would probably provide quicker reflexes and audible coordination. Calisthenics might actually provide better persistence with endurance also.[/QUOTE]
agreed
[QUOTE=GeneralSerpant;811966201]Kind of a gray area there. Weight lifters will probably have persistent stamina, but calisthenics would probably provide quicker reflexes and audible coordination. Calisthenics might actually provide better persistence with endurance also.[/QUOTE]
"The stronger you are, the faster you will be able to run."
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811966021]I'm just talking about people in general.
Calisthenics are better for real life application and tend to be safer. [/quote]
How are they better for "real life application"?
How are they safer?
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811966021]
Wouldn't wearing a weighted vest while doing pullups be the same as a heavy person doing pullups? Either way, the definition describes it as a movement. I don't think adding weight changes that.[/QUOTE]
No, it wouldn't. Adding a weight vest increases resistance.
Resistance training =/= calisthenics
Adding weight [I]does[/I] change it.
Bodyweight squats = calisthenics
Squats with a barbell on your back =/= calisthenics
nomsayin'?
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811966021]
Calisthenics are better for real life application and tend to be safer.
[/QUOTE]
Real life application for what? You're talking out your ass about nothing specific. I feel like you're about to use the word 'Functional strength' any second now. Functional for what? What's wrong with the functionality you get from heavy squats, deadlifts, bench press, press, etc, (granted, pull ups are one of the best upper back exercises but like anything you will need to add weight eventually to continue getting stronger)? Is it somehow inferior to the strength you gain from push ups, dips and jumping jacks?
Calisthenics may or may not be better at preparing athletes for some sports, (obviously excluding bodybuilding, power lifting and oly lifting). How about some examples, followed by some sources?
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811966021] Calisthenics are "Gymnastic exercises to achieve bodily fitness and grace of movement."
Calisthenics are calisthenics no matter how much weight you have on you. Wouldn't wearing a weighted vest while doing pullups be the same as a heavy person doing pullups? Either way, the definition describes it as a movement. I don't think adding weight changes that.[/QUOTE]
Adding weight does in fact change that. I don't think anything else needs to be said here.
[QUOTE=Lencho;811977701]How are they better for "real life application"?
How are they safer? [/quote]
it is important able to move your own body weight from any angle with ease, that's what calisthenics does for you.
How are they safer? I don't know the physics behind it but I know that they are easier on the joints and more natural movements making it less likely to injure yourself.
[QUOTE=Lencho;811977701] No, it wouldn't. Adding a weight vest increases resistance.
Resistance training =/= calisthenics
Adding weight [I]does[/I] change it.
Bodyweight squats = calisthenics
Squats with a barbell on your back =/= calisthenics
nomsayin'?[/QUOTE]
I see what you're saying but I would still consider weighted pullups calisthenics. For sake of further argument lets just say that weighted pull ups are not calisthenics. It still doesn't change my statement that body builders use some calisthenics
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811987141]
I see what you're saying but I would still consider weighted pullups calisthenics. For sake of further argument lets just say that weighted pull ups are not calisthenics. It still doesn't change my statement that body builders use some calisthenics[/QUOTE]
Well if that's the case, let's just say that the bench press is an oly lift and lat pulldowns are an ancient form of yoga that increases schlong size.
Damn, this is fun! :)
[QUOTE=NZninja101;811979981]Real life application for what? You're talking out your ass about nothing specific. I feel like you're about to use the word 'Functional strength' any second now. Functional for what? What's wrong with the functionality you get from heavy squats, deadlifts, bench press, press, etc, (granted, pull ups are one of the best upper back exercises but like anything you will need to add weight eventually to continue getting stronger)? Is it somehow inferior to the strength you gain from push ups, dips and jumping jacks?
Calisthenics may or may not be better at preparing athletes for some sports, (obviously excluding bodybuilding, power lifting and oly lifting). How about some examples, followed by some sources?
[/QUOTE]
I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. Let me just clear it up.
I think that a equal mix of weights and calisthenics its most beneficial. I think that for gaining strength and muscle mass, heavy compound lifts are most important. I also think that for over all physical health calisthenics are more important. Are they better? No. it all depends on your goal.
For examples of sports, weights are better for bodybuilding and power lifting, like you said. Calisthenics are more beneficial for boxing, mma, tennis, basket ball, soccer, etc. sports where you need to be more agile and have a larger variety of athletic abilities use more calisthenics.
Above all that, I strongly support using both calisthenics and weights as part of your routine for any sport.. If time and money allow it, that is.
[QUOTE=Lencho;811989731]Well if that's the case, let's just say that the bench press is an oly lift and lat pulldowns are an ancient form of yoga that increases schlong size.
Damn, this is fun! :)[/QUOTE]
Haha, that is pretty funny, yet ridiculous :)
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811994201]I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. Let me just clear it up.
I think that a equal mix of weights and calisthenics its most beneficial. I think that for gaining strength and muscle mass, heavy compound lifts are most important. I also think that for over all physical health calisthenics are more important. Are they better? No. it all depends on your goal.
For examples of sports, weights are better for bodybuilding and power lifting, like you said. Calisthenics are more beneficial for boxing, mma, tennis, basket ball, soccer, etc. sports where you need to be more agile and have a larger variety of athletic abilities use more calisthenics.
Above all that, I strongly support using both calisthenics and weights as part of your routine for any sport.. If time and money allow it, that is.[/QUOTE]
It seems like you're a good dude, but all this thread is basically saying is, "Lift some weights, do some conditioning, eat right."
To which any and all replies should be, "Yeah."
Nothing groundbreaking or controversial going on in here.
Also, doing general calisthenics isn't going to do much for making you better at a sport. "Functional training" and "sport specific exercises" are phrases that don't mean dick.
There is a strength coach whose stuff I read a lot of, and he had a good line about training for a sport:
"Get stronger in the weightroom, and get more [I]skilled[/I] on the court/field/pitch"
And yes, there are several calesthenics-type exercises (box jumps come to mind) that will help you get bigger, faster and stronger. It's just the "vs." part in your OP that doesn't need to be there that has derailed this thread.
[QUOTE=Lencho;811996151]It seems like you're a good dude, but all this thread is basically saying is, "Lift some weights, do some conditioning, eat right."
To which any and all replies should be, "Yeah."
Nothing groundbreaking or controversial going on in here.[/QUOTE]
Thats why I'm trying to figure out why you are arguing my point. I posted this to hold a discussion on peoples different views not to prove anyone wrong. Although I did have fun. you hold a solid argument, its been a pleasure
[QUOTE=Lencho;811975011]"The stronger you are, the faster you will be able to run."[/QUOTE]
The more resistance, the longer the recovery though.
What about safety precautions, and the ability to play the sport for a longer part of your life though?
^^^ general health.
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811994201]
I think that a equal mix of weights and calisthenics its most beneficial[/QUOTE]
calisthenics are only useful if you lift weights and use them as accessories.. on their own they are limited, you will never find an athlete in any sport that trains exclusively with calisthenics
[QUOTE=GeneralSerpant;812011261]The more resistance, the longer the recovery though.
What about safety precautions, and the ability to play the sport for a longer part of your life though?
^^^ general health.[/QUOTE]
That's a load of crap recovery is not dependent on the amount of resistance... recovery time is influenced by many factors
as for "safety precautions, and the ability to play the sport for a longer part of your life"
I don't even understand what you're trying to say there
[QUOTE=dansaunders4;811994201]I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. Let me just clear it up.
I think that a equal mix of weights and calisthenics its most beneficial. I think that for gaining strength and muscle mass, heavy compound lifts are most important. I also think that for over all physical health calisthenics are more important. Are they better? No. it all depends on your goal.
For examples of sports, weights are better for bodybuilding and power lifting, like you said. Calisthenics are more beneficial for boxing, mma, tennis, basket ball, soccer, etc. sports where you need to be more agile and have a larger variety of athletic abilities use more calisthenics.
Above all that, I strongly support using both calisthenics and weights as part of your routine for any sport.. If time and money allow it, that is.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that's not what you originally said but I'll let it slide. I agree with you on the notion that a combination of calisthenics and weights is best, (but in a way, calisthenics is a form of weight lifting-I'll ignore this for the sake of easier communication).
What I don't get is how calisthenics make you more agile, as well as putting you in better physical health. Are you referring to the open chain-close chain argument, where basically the notion is (eg)that chin ups are better than lat pull downs and dips are better than decline bench press because your body, (rather than the bar/s you're pushing or pulling against), moves with the movement?
The only context where I can imagine it could easily be argued that calisthenics are superior to weight training that would be the case is gymnastics, where the sport basically consists of a display of bodyweight movements and holds, (even though the athletes use a combination).