weight training vs calisthenics

[dansaunders4]

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

Uh huh, which is basically what I am saying. So where is the problem?

[IDrinkBloodLOL]

I gained the ability to do flagpoles by doing bent presses. Just saiyan.

[dansaunders4]

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).

I don't see how what I said there is any different from my original statement, but if you could point out what is different I would appreciate it.

I know that calisthenics are technically weight lifting, because you are lifting weight, but when talking about "lifting weights" and "calisthenics" it is implied what the difference is.

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).

2. That is what they do, make you more agile. If you are asking me why, well again, I don't know the physics behind it, but I don't need to. Look at almost any sport involving agility. They will use a lot of calisthenics. Especially fighters and runners which are two extremely taxing and athletically challenging sports. Also, what is more important for an athlete in general: having big bulky muscles and a good aesthetic appearance or being strong, having endurance, and being able to control your body movements to full potential all at the same time? Obviously some sports use more heavy weight lifting than calisthenics.
Again, my point is not to say calisthenics are better than weight lifting, but if you wanted to be in all around good physical condition and you could only choose one or the other, I would go with calisthenics because of the how much benefit they give, not just in terms of muscle. They are a great cardio work out while also improving body control/mechanics and coordination.
Personally, I do both and a pretty equal amount of both. I love doing both and would never say that calisthenics are better than weight lifting in general speaking.

[IDrinkBloodLOL]

ZNinja: Pro gymnasts lift weights.

"Olympic Lifting for the Growing Gymnast"

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/how_gymnasts_train.htm

[Havarthr]

Depends on how you want to look and/or what sport or interests you have. You can obtain obtain an amazing physique and physical prowess with calisthenics though and you really can't say that your not making any gains from it until you can pump out one arm pull-ups or planche push-ups. Even then the people at that level say they still haven't reached their potential.

End of the day depends on what you want to achieve. Both have their pros and cons for different situations and objectives.

[cmt029]

First of all, sorry for drudging up such an old post.

I came across this post and noticed that there seems to be a fairly strong lack of knowledge on this board as to the real potential of doing calisthenics. Many seem to think calisthenics are just pullups, dips, pushups, etc. These are the most simple basic calisthenics. Calisthenics go way deeper than this. Look at olympic gymnasts. Most bodybuilders coudn't do 1/10 of the things they are doing with their bodyweight. Being able to manage and hold your bodyweight in any position is calisthenics.

I have been lifting weights for a long time. I came across a youtube channel called 'barstarrz' which shows a lot of advanced calisthenics. Holy crap they can do some crazy stuff. I went out and tried it and couldn't do most of the advanced calisthenics they were doing even though I can lift heavy weights.

Long story short, I'm now leaning more towards advanced calisthenics. I'm not saying that it's better than weight training. I'm personally more impressed with calisthenic strength (being able to manage your bodyweight in any angle or direction, and to be able to hold it) than I am with guys who can bench 400, but have very limited flexibility. I'm amazed at how many jacked guys you see that can barely do pullups.

And, for guys who seriously think calisthenics is about jumping jacks, look up barstarzz on youtube and go out and try to do 1/10th of what they are capable of doing. A lot of these guys that only do calisthenics are big and ripped too. Pushups without your feet touching the ground, holding your body sideways and doing rows on a pullup bar, muscle ups (a pullup where you pull yourself over the bar into a dip). That's barely getting into advanced calisthenics.

I enjoy both weight training and calisthenics but if I had to choose just one it would absolutely be calisthenics.

Bodybuilding can develop certain muscles really powerful but I think calisthenics develops better overall strength. You hit every angle, just not a select few. I also believe calisthenics develops both controlled and explosive strength where bodybuilding develops mostly just explosive strength.

[blur2890]

i only train in calisthenics and my results are very good. i gained 10 lbs after lossing body fat weight from only a year. adding weight to calisthenics is ideal and will burn fat while building muscular strength endurance and explosive power. depending on the exercises you can build the best possable body like stated above there is advanced moves which are the best and i know from first hand i do almost all teh moves. the variations and moves are endless and yes leg workouts may be limited and lacking but calisthenics cover just about ever thing else.

[Qorban]

what do you think?

Calisthenics! You can get ripped alot faster with calisthencs. It also depends on the person but im 15 and gained 20 pounds in four months just with calithstenics. But i've added weightlifting to my routine because lately ive been plautoeing. So yeah

[IDrinkBloodLOL]

Calisthenics! You can get ripped alot faster with calisthencs. It also depends on the person but im 15 and gained 20 pounds in four months just with calithstenics. But i've added weightlifting to my routine because lately ive been plautoeing. So yeah

Thread necro of peace.

[jgreystoke]

How are they better for "real life application"?

How are they safer?







No, it wouldn't. Adding a weight vest increases resistance.


Resistance training =/= calisthenics



Adding weight does change it.


Bodyweight squats = calisthenics


Squats with a barbell on your back =/= calisthenics


nomsayin'?

This.

[nikoslimpe]

calishthenic is good for keeping your mucles in a place you cant work...i prefer bodyweight..variety of exercises for each muscle group and better results..

[akmusclehamster]

what do you think?

Both, lifting weights will give you the obvious mass and strength advantages but calisthenics are good for flexibility, speed and agility.
If you are going for aesthetics you really only need weights. For athleticism or sport-specific training, doing functional calisthenics for your sport will help you a lot.

EDIT: Yes i know weightlifting can help you with flexibility, speed and agility. Also yes calisthenics can give you strength and size too. Focusing more on the main points

[SixFootSniper]

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

gymnasts

[beslenay]

consider this...

upper body push = pushups

upper body pull = pull ups

lower body = squats

thats the whole body pretty much, anything extra if you're not happy can be added too like: mid sections front (abs), midsection back (back) , neck, arms.

now what if you did these all explosively ? then as you get stronger the faster you have to push right ? so the resistance is constantly getting greater as you increase your strength.

if you reach a plato then mix things up, add some accessory workout, **** those muscles up and wallah! there you go. thank me later.

[MichaelCJ]

gymnasts

Wrong.

[coolwavy]

I do both. Calisthenics is just for fun though. just handstands, muscle ups, levers.

[Paddyirishlad]

Me personally.... I feel you need to do both!!

[TIGER107]

look up bert assirati and other old time strong men. they used calisthenics as most of their programs. assirati had 10 inch wrists. was 5'7" 265lbs and built like a brickhouse. this is not someone you want to piss off by the way

[skullcrusher168]

Personally I'm a fan of both, but given a choice of one or the other I would choose calisthenics...

I've studied both types of training and feel that weightlifting although useful in some applications falls short of calisthenics. Calisthenics are safer, more useful in realistic applications, and when employed correctly place tension on most of the muscles of the body. So far in the answers I've seen, people have been mainly associating calisthenics with exercises such as the bodyweight squat and the push-up. Although these are calisthenics, I don't think people always consider how much broader and effective calisthenics can be. Another thing that bothers me is people generally think that there will come a point where calisthenics have little to no resistance. However, try doing a human flag, one-handed superman push-ups, or anything of the like and it will have an inhuman amount of resistance. To add to this, the resistance your feeling is all over your body, while weightlifting tends to target specific muscles.
For both calisthenics and weightlifting, muscles from all over the body work cohesively to give you strength, but calisthenics target all over the body all the time, and create a very athletic and strong build given dedication.
I would mix it up between both calisthenics and weightlifting because I enjoy the muscular harmony created by calisthenics, but also want to target specific "show" muscles more directly by weightlifting. My approach is to deadlift heavy and hammer off military presses alongside my calisthenics--resulting in an expert blend. Deadlifting or squatting very heavy actually increases testosterone levels and can help you overall-so I'd use it to add icing to the cake.
Weightlifting is great for its quick strength gains and very powerful specific muscles, but I feel it can't quite achieve the overall athleticism and power of calisthenics. Power is much greater in groups rather than in individuals. Mixing the two is the best to me--although if given a choice between the two, I would take calisthenics.

[canada99]

ive always thought the biggest difference between weights and calisthenics is weight training is more practical. its simply easier to add weights and progress, and hit every muscle and from multiple angles on a weight training program. most calisthenics are great exercises, and are often used in bodybuilding or strength programs, they just arent as practical to add weight or progress with.

advantage to weights for mass building because they are easier to target a muscle and progress weights to get stronger. advantage to calisthenics to in fat loss because you use your core muscles more and more movement to burn more calories.

[pleaseBurpee]

There is not a free weight exercise that compares to the body weight Front Lever and Muscle Up.

[Boxingfella]

If anyone said calisthenics, you are grossly, grossly,grossly misinformed.

Don't care what our goals are