Build muscle without weights?

[2ku]

Hey all, I'm going to assume this is a pretty newbie question so I've put it here :)

My question is, to increase muscle mass, do you need to lift weights? Or can you build muscle just by doing things like pushups, squats, crunches, etc?

I'm not trying to become an Arnold Schwarzenegger or something, but just a little increase. Especially the pectorals.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! :cool:

[Tout Prêt 1888]

you can lift weights and not turn into some sort of hulk so yeah I would it helps, twice a week or so is good if your looking for fitness as opposed to body building. my other piece of advice would be to do cardio training on another day and not to do weights the same days as your at actual martial arts training.

[bmcgonag]

General rules of thumb to follow. To increase strength without building much mass (mass and strength have some coincidence, but not a 1:1 by any means)
- lift medium weight with medium repetition for 4 to 5 sets.
- ex: Bench as much as you can and do 12 - 16 repetitions (up/down) 4 to 5 times with about a minute in between sets to rest / stretch the muscles.

Follow a similar rep / set pattern for all muscle groups.

To increase endurance and get lean do high reps at lower weight.
- ex: 30 - 35 repetitions of weight that makes you feel fatigued for 5 - 6 sets with a minute between to rest / stretch muscles.

To build muscle (not necessarily increase strength optimally, though strength will increase), do low reps at high weight.
- ex: 5 - 6 repetitions of as much weight as you can and often needing a small assist on the last repetition of the last couple of sets. (WARNING: all weight lifting activity should be done with an attentive partner capable of saving your a** if needed).

Hope that helps...working out which days to work what will be very much up to your body type and levels of fatigue.

I do Monday Upper Body, Tuesday Lower Body, weds Thurs rest, Friday Upper Body and Lower Body, Sat Sun Rest.

I know a body builder who does about 6 - 8 exercises per body part and has divided his workout into a couple of body parts a day working each one only 1 day per week.

Hope it helps, and have fun with it.

[WhitePanda]

Usually just starting a new exercise will cause a small increase in size in first month or two. But if you want more than that, you need to workout each group of muscles about 3 times a week, 3 sets/8-10 reps at 80-90% of your 1MR. You also need to watch your diet. I can't stress how important diet is.

You also have to keep in mind that it takes years to get into Arnie shape. A lot of people seem to think that all you have to do is lift some weights and you put on that mass almost by accident. It's not true. It takes a lot of dedication and some genetic luck to get really big.

So if all you want to do is add a little bit of size then that won't be much of a problem.

But to get back to the basic question, if you want to add some significant size then yes you will have to use weights and you will have to diet as well.

[gcollin]

Tension works wonders.

[Kuma]

You don't necessarily need weights but using weights is definitely the most efficient way of adding muscle mass.

General rules of thumb to follow. To increase strength without building much mass (mass and strength have some coincidence, but not a 1:1 by any means)
- lift medium weight with medium repetition for 4 to 5 sets.
- ex: Bench as much as you can and do 12 - 16 repetitions (up/down) 4 to 5 times with about a minute in between sets to rest / stretch the muscles.

Follow a similar rep / set pattern for all muscle groups.

To increase endurance and get lean do high reps at lower weight.
- ex: 30 - 35 repetitions of weight that makes you feel fatigued for 5 - 6 sets with a minute between to rest / stretch muscles.

To build muscle (not necessarily increase strength optimally, though strength will increase), do low reps at high weight.
- ex: 5 - 6 repetitions of as much weight as you can and often needing a small assist on the last repetition of the last couple of sets. (WARNING: all weight lifting activity should be done with an attentive partner capable of saving your a** if needed).

Hope that helps...working out which days to work what will be very much up to your body type and levels of fatigue.

I do Monday Upper Body, Tuesday Lower Body, weds Thurs rest, Friday Upper Body and Lower Body, Sat Sun Rest.

I know a body builder who does about 6 - 8 exercises per body part and has divided his workout into a couple of body parts a day working each one only 1 day per week.

Hope it helps, and have fun with it.

And to the OP - Much of this is incorrect, so please don't give it too much attention.

bmcgonag - Who taught you this? Because it's woefully inaccurate.

[Knight_Errant]

it's possible, but you have to use HARD exercises, basically. If 3*20 bodyweight squats is hard for you, then do it and power to your elbow, but you want to be doing a ton of pullups. And jumping, did I mention jumping? Nothing like a set of broad jumps to liven up a workout. At this point, I yabber crossfit until somebody hits me on the head with a hammer and tells me to shut up. My workouts have a basic, almost military flavour. If I can't do an exercise, I sub it with one I can. It's usually some form of pushup.

[illegalusername]

How big are you now by the way? You might not be eating enough.

I'm a twig myself and i've only lately started to put on weight. Turns out that protein doesn't just appear from thin air :eek:

[Patrick Smith]

You can develop uncanny strength by using either iron weights, your body weight, or both! They're both just tools for you to use to achieve your goals. You can get big and incredibly strong by using either of the tools. Compare gymnasts with power lifters.

From what I've read, how big you get is largely dependent on how you eat. If you lift a lot (w/body weight or iron) and you eat a lot of good, whole food, you'll get bigger and stronger.

I suggest you read 'Never Gymless' by Ross Enamiat (rosstraining.com) if you are interested in using body weight exercises for your combat training. Ross is an incredible guy and his workouts really hit home!

[Bigmikey]

To answer the question, no, you don't need weights to build a little mass. Simply doing pushups to failure if you've not done them regularly can bring about muscular development, as can any bodyweight exercise provided you can place enough load/stress on the muscle to cause breakdown.

Thats why many move to weight training. Eventually you'll find yourself in the position of needing to do 4 sets of 8 million pushups in order to properly challenge yourself.

For the moment, simply focus on pushups and dips. I used to do dips at the part of my kitchen counter where it turned and formed an inside corner. At first I would leave my feet on the floor to support me but after I got strong enough I just hung there and cranked out my dips. Between pushups and dips you should have plenty of tools to change your physique.

[Patrick Smith]

To answer the question, no, you don't need weights to build a little mass. Simply doing pushups to failure if you've not done them regularly can bring about muscular development, as can any bodyweight exercise provided you can place enough load/stress on the muscle to cause breakdown.

Thats why many move to weight training. Eventually you'll find yourself in the position of needing to do 4 sets of 8 million pushups in order to properly challenge yourself.

For the moment, simply focus on pushups and dips. I used to do dips at the part of my kitchen counter where it turned and formed an inside corner. At first I would leave my feet on the floor to support me but after I got strong enough I just hung there and cranked out my dips. Between pushups and dips you should have plenty of tools to change your physique.

Hi, BigMikey.

There are many, many more exercises then dips and push ups available to a body weight strength trainer. Advanced push up and dip variations could include one arm push ups, one arm push ups with hand near waist, regular push ups with hands near waist, explosive push ups, explosive one arm push ups, push ups on fist, one arm push ups on fist, push ups with hands elevated, push ups with hands elevated and placed near waist, push ups with feet elevated, push ups with one foot elevated and the opposite knee at your side, dive bomber push ups, hand stand push ups, one arm hand stand push up, isometric variations, and others.

Advanced pulling exercises could include rope climbing, rope climbing with one arm, one arm chin ups, towel pull ups/chin ups, rope pull ups/chin ups, pull ups with iso-hold at top, rafter pull ups, and others.

If a guy can pump out 15-20 one arm push ups, one arm chin ups, or one arm rope climb, he's pretty dang strong!

http://backyard-strength.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gymnast-rings.jpg

[Bigmikey]

Hi, BigMikey.

There are many, many more exercises then dips and push ups available to a body weight strength trainer. Advanced push up and dip variations could include one arm push ups, one arm push ups with hand near waist, regular push ups with hands near waist, explosive push ups, explosive one arm push ups, push ups on fist, one arm push ups on fist, push ups with hands elevated, push ups with hands elevated and placed near waist, push ups with feet elevated, push ups with one foot elevated and the opposite knee at your side, dive bomber push ups, hand stand push ups, one arm hand stand push up, isometric variations, and others.

Advanced pulling exercises could include rope climbing, rope climbing with one arm, one arm chin ups, towel pull ups/chin ups, rope pull ups/chin ups, pull ups with iso-hold at top, rafter pull ups, and others.

If a guy can pump out 15-20 one arm push ups, one arm chin ups, or one arm rope climb, he's pretty dang strong!

http://backyard-strength.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gymnast-rings.jpg

Absoutely agree there are many more things he could do, including the list of pushup variations you mentioned, but I've never been one to drown a beginner under too much information. He, as a beginner, can get a wealth of benefit just out of countertop dips and traditional pushups which he can also do right there in his kitchen if he wants to.

Climbing a rope is an AWESOME workout... IF you have someplace to hang it. You can also do chins from tree branches, plyometrics off of picnic benches, you can do monkey bars for speed at a local park... you can train outside and do so much, but thats not what he asked. He asked if he can build muscle without weights. I simply wanted to give him an example of how that could be possible. If he comes back and asks for specifics well then I'll fire up the old fingers and get to specifyin, lol :D

[6footgeek]

Like what Kuma san said. You don't nessesarily need weights to build muscle and strength. Personally i like to tire myself out with pushups and squats and the like and then go for weights to work out specific muscle groups.

Pushups are one of the best exersises you can do to help with your punch strength. And you don't really need excessive wight use unless you're planning on going in competitive martial arts or wanna be a body builder.

[2ku]

How big are you now by the way? You might not be eating enough.

I'm a twig myself and i've only lately started to put on weight. Turns out that protein doesn't just appear from thin air :eek:Well I am described by basically everyone as "skinny" if that tells you anything. My ex girlfriends have said I have nice arms, though some have said pecs could use some work.

As far as eating goes, I am a vegetarian (though evaluating that decision), but I have not begun training yet so I am not sure if my protein intake is up to spec. I'll know once I start training, though.

Thanks for the advice, all! :)

[Tout Prêt 1888]

Well I am described by basically everyone as "skinny" if that tells you anything. My ex girlfriends have said I have nice arms, though some have said pecs could use some work.

As far as eating goes, I am a vegetarian (though evaluating that decision), but I have not begun training yet so I am not sure if my protein intake is up to spec. I'll know once I start training, though.

Thanks for the advice, all! :)

why exactly are you weary of lifting weights, Im only 9 stone probably skinnier than you but since iv started martial arts and training in general iv become pretty built and can regularly overpower people up to 11 stone. my point is you can do weights and not end up looking like a body builder they help so why make things harder on yourself by not doing them.

[2ku]

why exactly are you weary of lifting weights, Im only 9 stone probably skinnier than you but since iv started martial arts and training in general iv become pretty built and can regularly overpower people up to 11 stone. my point is you can do weights and not end up looking like a body builder they help so why make things harder on yourself by not doing them.Weary is the wrong word. The original question was simply if it was possible. The bit about becoming a "body builder" was not to say I don't want to. It was to specify that I am not asking "can I become a 'body builder' without lifting weights?" (probably impossible) but rather "can you increase muscle mass at all without lifting weights?" Or in other words, I was planning on doing pushups and other exercises anyway, and was curious if I should expect to see muscle mass increase.

As for why I am looking to do so without weights:
1. Need to buy weights, or get a gym membership
2. Need to be where weights are to train
3. Nowhere to put weights anyway in my small apartment even if I did buy them.

Hopefully that clears it up! :)

[Fish Of Doom]

you can try www.trainforstrength.com

see workout 1. try doing that for a couple of months and see how you do.

[Tout Prêt 1888]

I was planning on doing pushups and other exercises anyway, and was curious if I should expect to see muscle mass increase.

well yeah that's kind of the point of doing them I'm just saying there's no rule that says you cant do those and weights

[Heavenly Glory]

As for why I am looking to do so without weights:
1. Need to buy weights, or get a gym membership
2. Need to be where weights are to train
3. Nowhere to put weights anyway in my small apartment even if I did buy them.

Hopefully that clears it up! :)
You don't actually need to spend a lot of money. Press ups, dips & get yourself one of these :

UK - JML Iron Gym Total Upper Body Workout Bar: Amazon.co.uk: Sports & Leisure

US - Amazon.com: Iron Gym Total Upper Body Workout Bar: Sports & Outdoors

I got one a little while back, as well as ones for couple for my friends and one for my JKD instructor. They did pay me - wasn't giving them away.

But everyone agrees, they're great bits of kit. Pressups, dips, situps and different types of pull ups/chin ups. Very sturdy, no creaking from the kit itself or from the doorframe.

[Tout Prêt 1888]

You don't actually need to spend a lot of money. Press ups, dips & get yourself one of these :

UK - JML Iron Gym Total Upper Body Workout Bar: Amazon.co.uk: Sports & Leisure (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Iron-Total-Upper-Body-Workout/dp/B002GHBRWA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=sports&qid=1283531233&sr=1-1)

US - Amazon.com: Iron Gym Total Upper Body Workout Bar: Sports & Outdoors (http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Gym-Total-Upper-Workout/dp/B001EJMS6K)

I got one a little while back, as well as ones for couple for my friends and one for my JKD instructor. They did pay me - wasn't giving them away.

But everyone agrees, they're great bits of kit. Pressups, dips, situps and different types of pull ups/chin ups. Very sturdy, no creaking from the kit itself or from the doorframe.

haha god yes i have something similar it should be mandatory to have something like this attached to at least one door in every house, one of the best things ever given to me

[Heavenly Glory]

haha god yes i have something similar it should be mandatory to have something like this attached to at least one door in every house, one of the best things ever given to me

This one doesn't attach permanently, you can mover it aound so just need the one. Unlike the old style bars, you don't have to fit retainers, etc. The only thing it uses, is a removeable hook to stop it slipping.

The hook takes 5 seconds to install and does not damage anything. The Iron Gym itself, about another 5 seconds.

[Tout Prêt 1888]

This one doesn't attach permanently, you can mover it aound so just need the one. Unlike the old style bars, you don't have to fit retainers, etc. The only thing it uses, is a removeable hook to stop it slipping.

The hook takes 5 seconds to install and does not damage anything. The Iron Gym itself, about another 5 seconds.

nice sounds pretty perfect but I just meant pull up bars in general you cant beat them

[Knight_Errant]

My advice is also not to hop from exercise to exercise too much. Vary the routine, but keep the movements. If you try and progress too fast, you won't.

[2ku]

My advice is also not to hop from exercise to exercise too much. Vary the routine, but keep the movements. If you try and progress too fast, you won't.May I ask what you mean by this? Specifically "keep the movements." Do you mean do a few exercises thoroughly and not a bunch of exercises half-arsed?

[Knight_Errant]

essentially, yeah. But you can vary the exercises quite a bit- look at this: http://www.crossfit.com

[Gary]

No, you don't need weights to build muscle or strength. Then again you don't need to use both legs to get to the shops if you're happy to hop. Weights are a useful tool, as are bodyweight exercises, neither are essential but they're both very, very useful.

[Fish Of Doom]

weights vs bodyweight is a silly distinction anyway. it's all a matter of how you contract different muscles at different angles, and how frequently you do it (along with diet and all the other aspects that are not a part of the work-out itself).

people tend to attribute magical qualities to weights or bodyweight exercises when they're both the same thing: muscle use against resistance.

[Frodocious]

Excellent point Fish. Olympic gymnasts have great physiques but rarely touch weights.

[Atre]

And to the OP - Much of this is incorrect, so please don't give it too much attention.

bmcgonag - Who taught you this? Because it's woefully inaccurate.

Hey Kuma, what's the correct version?

I have no expertise so I'd love to know :)

[Patrick Smith]

I agree that the "weights vs. bodyweight" argument is silly, but in my opinion, gymnastic style bodyweight training for the upper body and a mixture of body weight plus heavy squats and deadlifts for the lower body make a great mix for any athlete. Just decide what you want to do, and figure out which method (or maybe a mix) will get you there...

FWIW

[Fish Of Doom]

Just decide what you want to do, and figure out which method (or maybe a mix) will get you there...

+1

[JaxMMA]

Why is it usually "skinny" people who are just starting to workout that worry about looking like body builders?

For God's sake, it's not like you just pick up a weight and end up looking like Arnold. Body builders workout for years to look the way they look and follow certain techniques.
I guess people don't realize that in real life it is sometimes necesary to move other objects than just your own body...which is OK, your body won't transform immediately.


/rant

[seiken steve]

General rules of thumb to follow. To increase strength without building much mass (mass and strength have some coincidence, but not a 1:1 by any means)
- lift medium weight with medium repetition for 4 to 5 sets.
- ex: Bench as much as you can and do 12 - 16 repetitions (up/down) 4 to 5 times with about a minute in between sets to rest / stretch the muscles.

.

Ironically what you just advised looks much more like a hypertrophy program designed to as much size as possible.
Did you have any science to that claim? Just out of curiosity.

Getting strong invariably Leads to some growth, because surprisingly enough people who are strong look strong!

Yes you bodyweight moves will cause some gains with a good diet. More so if you area beginner. Once they become less challenging for you you could switch to the plyometric equivalent, then from there look at a more specific gymnastic workout.

Really though, I'd always recommend big weights for someone who wants to be strong. But perhaps that's personal preference.

[Kuma]

Hey Kuma, what's the correct version?

I have no expertise so I'd love to know :)

As seiken steve just said, it's more a hypertrophy/muscular endurance rep scheme you're recommending. Typically, multiple sets of low reps will allow you to add a lot of strength. Gaining size is merely a matter of diet combined with the hard work. If you want to get strong, you need to lift heavy weights on a regular basis. Lifting a weight you can do for 12-15 repetitions for the most part is not the same as doing one for multiple sets of low reps.

Take a guy who can bench 300 pounds. Using the Brzycki formula, you can do 70% of 300 (210 pounds) for 12 reps. Using reps that high, typically your last set is your work set, so you basically lift 2520 pounds (210x12) in that workout for your bench.

Now, instead if you work say multiple sets with a higher weight (let's say 80%, or 240), if you're doing the typical 5x5 routine now you can do something like three work sets with 240, or 240x15 in this case, for a total workload of 3600 pounds. You've now just lifted almost 1100 pounds more in this workout.

[seiken steve]

Simple and technical push ups are an effortless way to improve muscles without weights.

Getting big or strong is never effortless. Getting strong is the result of HARD work, people who look for an easy option don't get strong. Similarly people who think it is easy are rarely strong.

[Estrix]

I thought I'd post an anecdotal observation on this subject.

I've never lifted weights, all my training is body weight and/or running and martial arts. I don't lift weights, well except for a shirt stint before I joined the army I guess.

This springs from my belief that natural human development (before the invention of the gym) occurred with little purpose designed weights. In older times you're fitness came from work or weapons/military training. In this line I also always try to do manual work when possible.

Anyway I'm only 5'9 but my body is well toned (my wife describes it as lithe I think...).

However I have a younger brother who only lift weights, a lot, ever since he could get into the gym I think. His body type is completely different. He's taller and broader than me with much larger musculature.

What is interesting is that we sometimes have "fights" as brothers do, and I can still kick his ass up and down for all his "weight lifting," I can run faster and further, and do more labour type work (we were digging and filling a cable channel). This leads me to believe that bodyweight training is better for general application in life, where as gym is only good for gym.

[Kuma]

What is interesting is that we sometimes have "fights" as brothers do, and I can still kick his ass up and down for all his "weight lifting," I can run faster and further, and do more labour type work (we were digging and filling a cable channel). This leads me to believe that bodyweight training is better for general application in life, where as gym is only good for gym.

It all boils down to how you train, not necessarily what you do. Bodyweight exercises do have their merit, but a lot of manual labor that requires a lot of strength benefits a lot from weight training. A combination of both is what you need.

I will say though that a solid foundation in weight training carries over much better to manual labor than does calisthenics. That's why during my military days like today these young kids start crying after moving only maybe a hundred 8" cinderblocks (maybe a rough 16kg each) to make a masonry wall I usually end up doing the bulk of it. Why? A combination of knowing what hard work is really like helps, but I attribute a lot of it to my weight training. That's what helps me work these 20-something privates into the ground without breaking a sweat.

[slipthejab]

It never has to be mutually exclusive. You can actually lift weights and do bodyweight exercises. Shocker that. :P

[seiken steve]

It never has to be mutually exclusive. You can actually lift weights and do bodyweight exercises. Shocker that. :P

Sssshhhh.

You're ment to charge £74.99 and warble about muscle confusion and flexanography for an hour or so before revealing secrets like that!

[harukoraharu]

I need to do more weight training in order to get the strength for more bodyweight training exercises like pullups, chinups, dips, handstands. I just managed 40kg on bench press last night :)

[seiken steve]

Well done. :)
If you dont mind me asking how much do you weigh?

[harukoraharu]

It varies between 61-64kg but guessing by how tight or not my jeans are probably closer to 61kg. The gym boss said I really needed to be able to chest pull my body weight for pullups to be doable, and I'm probably 4-6 months off managing that. I didn't really notice my upper body strength going in my thirties but have an office job and rarely lift anything heavier than a couple of pannier bags of groceries up several flights of steps. Last year I mixed cardio with too many lightweight reps which didn't get any results. This year I'm trying something else.

[Patrick Smith]

Upper body body weight training is extremely effective for all types of strength types, including maximal strength (evidenced by even low level gymnasts). The main mistake that people who want to go all body weight make is that they fail to understand the methods of progression behind body weight strength, and they completely miss the point. They'll do things like long sets of push ups, chins, pull ups, squats, lunges, and other typical exercises that you see people do in an aerobics class.

The problem with this is that they have no real progression of exercises to follow, ones that gradually get harder and harder, and that gradually decrease the leverage. Building the Gymnastic Body by Christopher Sommer has over 200 exercises and progressions. If you want to learn how to become strong using body weight, you must learn the progressions! They are not as simply as adding a pound here and a pound there and not commonly used outside of gymnastics.

By the way, I said UPPER BODY body weight strength training and not body weight training in general on purpose! I'm a huge fan of squats, deadlifts, weighted lunges, split squats, olympic lifts, and all kinds of weight lower body exercises. It's hard to reduce the leverage of the lower body, and, in my opinion, if you want to be a great athlete, you better lift heavy! :)

Just my two cents, for what it's worth.

[Giovanni]

cross fit and yoga will build plenty of strength needed for martial arts.

[seiken steve]

Brilliant post patrick.
now get your backside on the pull up challenge!

[Patrick Smith]

now get your backside on the pull up challenge!

Which pull up challenge is that? :D

[seiken steve]

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98706

[Fish Of Doom]

a quick note about weights vs bodyweight before i forget it again. heavier people will gain a lot more benefits out of bodyweight training, because their bodyweight is greater. take two guys with a 30 kilo difference who can both do exactly the same bodyweight feats, and give them weights. the heavier one will invariably be able to lift more, as he will be proportionately stronger. on the other hand, with weights, the weight is fixed, so if both of those guys were equal in lifting volume, the smaller guy would be comparatively weaker.

so, yeah, if you're a small person, you should maybe try to progress to weights early on, whereas if you're bigger, it might be worth investing a little time into bodyweight training even if you already lift weights.

[Knight_Errant]

I remember reading somewhere that it's actually better to have a mix of weights and bodyweight exercises. Something about a balance between closed and open kinetic chain exercises. I don't remember it very well though, so I could have misinterpreted it.

[Patrick Smith]

a quick note about weights vs bodyweight before i forget it again. heavier people will gain a lot more benefits out of bodyweight training, because their bodyweight is greater. take two guys with a 30 kilo difference who can both do exactly the same bodyweight feats, and give them weights. the heavier one will invariably be able to lift more, as he will be proportionately stronger. on the other hand, with weights, the weight is fixed, so if both of those guys were equal in lifting volume, the smaller guy would be comparatively weaker.

so, yeah, if you're a small person, you should maybe try to progress to weights early on, whereas if you're bigger, it might be worth investing a little time into bodyweight training even if you already lift weights.

I disagree. Look at professional gymnasts, for example. They are almost exclusively smaller than the average person, use almost strictly body weight exercises, and possess physiques that very few non-gymnasts do. Additionally, tall people are not excluded, as evidenced by a number of tall and successful gymnasts.

[Fish Of Doom]

I disagree. Look at professional gymnasts, for example. They are almost exclusively smaller than the average person, use almost strictly body weight exercises, and possess physiques that very few non-gymnasts do. Additionally, tall people are not excluded, as evidenced by a number of tall and successful gymnasts.

that is... not related to what i said...

[Kuma]

I think what Fish is going on the lines of is if you're a smaller person body weight exercises naturally come easier as you are not moving as much weight than if you're a larger guy.

Here's Jesse Marunde doing 21 pull-ups at a BW of 310 pounds. That's a lot more impressive than seeing a guy who's 110 pounds do 21 pull-ups, don't you think?

YouTube - Jesse Marunde 21 Pull-ups

[Fish Of Doom]

what kuma said.

i can do pistols with a counterweight and can do somewhat wonky one armed pushups, but i'm still only moving a good portion of my puny 52 kilograms. there are people who weight so much (such as the guy in kuma's video) that they'd move more weight doing normal bodyweight squats and pushups than i do with the one-sided versions.

[Frodocious]

I think it could also be argued that due to the difficulty in progressing bodyweight exercises when you are really large, weight training might be easier. By this I mean might be is easier to gradually increase the weight on an overhead press than to move to a full handstand pushup. So if you are a large person, progressing your strength solely using bodyweight could take a long time and a lot of commitment (which a lot of people don't have), whereas it is easier to see measurable progress using weights for the same individual.

The opposite it also true as Kuma says, if you are 10kg underweight then doing 10 pullups is much easier than for someone who is 10kgs overweight.

The conclusion of all this (in my opinion) is that it is worthwhile all individuals combining both weight training and bodyweight training to some extent.

[Patrick Smith]

Fish - what I said is extremely related to what you said.

a quick note about weights vs bodyweight before i forget it again. heavier people will gain a lot more benefits out of bodyweight training, because their bodyweight is greater. take two guys with a 30 kilo difference who can both do exactly the same bodyweight feats, and give them weights. the heavier one will invariably be able to lift more, as he will be proportionately stronger. on the other hand, with weights, the weight is fixed, so if both of those guys were equal in lifting volume, the smaller guy would be comparatively weaker.

so, yeah, if you're a small person, you should maybe try to progress to weights early on, whereas if you're bigger, it might be worth investing a little time into bodyweight training even if you already lift weights.

Again, I disagree. It's all about relative leverage. A 270 lb guy doing push ups in the standard position is not likely to be working much, if any, harder than the little 140 lb guy doing pseudo planche push ups or even full planche push ups. The opposite would most likely to be true. Leverage is the key, and strength of contraction is the name of the game in resistance training.

Of course, I assume that both individuals are in very good condition physically.

Kuma - yes, it is; however, it is not more impressive than seeing a 130 lb guy do 20 one arm chin ups.

[Fish Of Doom]

Fish - what I said is extremely related to what you said.

WAS NOT!
*hides behind kuma and sticks tongue out at you*

Again, I disagree. It's all about relative leverage. A 270 lb guy doing push ups in the standard position is not likely to be working much, if any, harder than the little 140 lb guy doing pseudo planche push ups or even full planche push ups. The opposite would most likely to be true. Leverage is the key, and strength of contraction is the name of the game in resistance training.

Of course, I assume that both individuals are in very good condition physically.

"take two guys with a 30 kilo difference who can both do exactly the same bodyweight feats"

*ahem*

Kuma - yes, it is; however, it is not more impressive than seeing a 130 lb guy do 20 one arm chin ups.

what about seeing a 310 pound guy do 20 one arm chin ups?

[Atre]

For my money, body weight exercises are a very much yes/no deal.

You need to find exercises that push your weight limit (ie what your muscles can shift) and work those. Irritating if the exercises that come to mind are to easy, a no-starter if the exercises are too hard to hit single reps.

I like the idea of bodyweight because the fitness I want is the ability to move my body well into handstands and a core that can hold any pose, but it does offer difficult progression outside of obvious windows (to which the answer is "learn more" of course :P gymnasts do damn well with it)

[Kuma]

Kuma - yes, it is; however, it is not more impressive than seeing a 130 lb guy do 20 one arm chin ups.

Anybody doing 20 one-arm chin-ups is going to be impressive. But if there's a 65kg guy doing them compared to an 85kg, the heavier guy will always be the more impressive, much like the lighter guy will always be more impressive lifting heavy free weights.

For example, if you see a burly powerlifter deadlifting 725 pounds at a body weight of 300 pounds, it turns out to be about 2.41x bodyweight, which though a big pull isn't as impressive as Bob Peoples who pulled 725 pounds at a body weight of 181 pounds for a 4x bodyweight pull. More impressive, isn't it?

http://www.usawa.com/USAWA%20Uploads/2010/06/BobPeoplesDL.jpg

With body weight exercises, it's the reverse. For that same 130 pound guy to lift as much as Jesse Marunde did in his pull-ups, he would have to do 21 pull-ups with an added 180 pounds.

A good way to look at it is the Tactical Strength Challenge hosted by Dragon Door. Two of the events are actually deadlifts and pull-ups, and ties go to the lighter of the contestants for deadlifts and the heavier of the contestants for the pull-ups.

[Patrick Smith]

Yes, it is impressive, but it's relative strength. It's the amount of weight that can be moved and lifted versus the weight of a person (which, to some degree, has a big say in how much strength they will possess).

A big guy weighing 310 lbs better be strong as heck, because all that muscle needs to be able to do SOMETHING. That's a huge amount of weight to carry around and it should be fully functional. I understand that someone in Jesse's position is technically lifting more weight, but I think that if Bob maintained his body weight/strength relationship, if he weighed 310 lbs he would be able to pull more than Jesse. I'm not articulating this very clearly, I know, but I hope you get some sort of idea of what I'm TRYING to explain, Dangit!:D

I am not arguing that a big guy pulling a lot is not impressive, but I don't find it particularly impressive considering that he has so much more muscle to use than a smaller guy, although a smaller guy who can do the same thing and maybe more most likely has denser muscle.


"take two guys with a 30 kilo difference who can both do exactly the same bodyweight feats"

*ahem*


I think it depends on the exercise and level of leverage involved. I have long legs, so when I hold an L-sit it's definitely more impressive than if a person with short legs and arms holds one. The leverage is less in my situation than in his.


what about seeing a 310 pound guy do 20 one arm chin ups?

As Kuma already said, seeing anybody do 20 one arm chin ups is impressive. The question is not whether it is impressive, but whether a smaller person doing a more advanced progression of the same exercise for the same reps would be more impressive.

[Patrick Smith]

For my money, body weight exercises are a very much yes/no deal.

You need to find exercises that push your weight limit (ie what your muscles can shift) and work those. Irritating if the exercises that come to mind are to easy, a no-starter if the exercises are too hard to hit single reps.

I like the idea of bodyweight because the fitness I want is the ability to move my body well into handstands and a core that can hold any pose, but it does offer difficult progression outside of obvious windows (to which the answer is "learn more" of course :P gymnasts do damn well with it)

Hi, Atre. Are you familiar with Coach Sommer? He's a gymnastics coach (I think for the junior team of the U.S., not sure, though), and he's got a great book and a great forum if you're interested in strength and condition primarily via body weight. He even posts a workout of the day (WOD) 4 days a week!

http://www.gymnasticbodies.com/

[Fish Of Doom]

I think it depends on the exercise and level of leverage involved. I have long legs, so when I hold an L-sit it's definitely more impressive than if a person with short legs and arms holds one. The leverage is less in my situation than in his.

what if the guy with short legs outweights you by 30 kilograms? that is 30 kilograms more that he has to hold, and his legs are probably heavier than yours. what if, as in my original argument, which you are conveniently ignoring to present your own unrelated although valid statements to disagree with mine, the guy is exactly the same as you, but bigger. whose L-sit is more impressive now? since an L-sit is an isometric hold, which are generally not done with weights AFAIK, let's use other exercises as an example. i weight 52 kilograms, john doe weights 100. if i do a pistol squat, i'm moving pretty much my full weight on one leg, same for john doe. by doing the easier, bilateral version of the exercise, the weight one can move is actually more than double that of the unilateral version, so i should (at least assuming i had enough ankle mobility and core stability to do a proper pistol instead of those counter-weighted things i do) be able to theoretically squat near 100 kilograms at least once without excessive effort. john doe should be able to squat over 200. so john doe can just happily do pistol squats and get more leg work than he's likely to ever need, unless he's a competitive lifter or has really high performance requirements, whereas if i were to want a comparative level of absolute strength after achieving proper pistols (and being so small, i am of the opinion that i do need quite a bit strength), i'd need to lift some heavy weights.

As Kuma already said, seeing anybody do 20 one arm chin ups is impressive. The question is not whether it is impressive, but whether a smaller person doing a more advanced progression of the same exercise for the same reps would be more impressive.

"take two guys with a 30 kilo difference who can both do exactly the same bodyweight feats"

*ahem*

ಠ_ಠ

[Frodocious]

Go with simple physical simple push ups first.

Is that you're answer for everything? Do pushups? Because, it's a bit simplistic and doesn't really cover a decent full body workout!

[Patrick Smith]

i weight 52 kilograms, john doe weights 100. if i do a pistol squat, i'm moving pretty much my full weight on one leg, same for john doe. by doing the easier, bilateral version of the exercise, the weight one can move is actually more than double that of the unilateral version, so i should (at least assuming i had enough ankle mobility and core stability to do a proper pistol instead of those counter-weighted things i do) be able to theoretically squat near 100 kilograms at least once without excessive effort.

I don't think this is correct. Your body weight remains the same, regardless of whether the exercise is bilateral or unilateral. If you weigh 52kg and John Doe weighs 100, you both do a single leg squat (the name pistol makes no sense, it's an SLS), than what happens is instead of you lifting your 52kg with two legs (26kg per leg) you lift 52kg with one leg. The same goes for John Doe.

In all honesty, I don't know how to calculate the relationship in increase in weight by decrease in leverage. If I knew that, and exactly how much leverage an exercise had, I would be able to calculate the true weight being moved.

Regarding your question, "take two guys with a 30 kilo difference who can both do exactly the same bodyweight feats," the person who is heavier is most likely to be stronger (as I've already said); however, I do think that when somebody has an extra 13.6kg of muscle on him, he should be stronger anyway.

AND...


I think Aki Oshin likes push ups...

Go with simple physical simple push ups first.

To enhance muscles without having weights, simple push ups are highly recommended.

Easy as well as specialized pushups are generally an easy way for you to enhance muscles without having weight loads.

If you don't want to gain weights while building your muscles, start with simple physical exercise like push ups.

:cool:

[Fish Of Doom]

I don't think this is correct. Your body weight remains the same, regardless of whether the exercise is bilateral or unilateral. If you weigh 52kg and John Doe weighs 100, you both do a single leg squat (the name pistol makes no sense, it's an SLS), than what happens is instead of you lifting your 52kg with two legs (26kg per leg) you lift 52kg with one leg. The same goes for John Doe.

what is not correct? when did i ever say my bodyweight changes? i don't even understand what you're trying to say after that.

look, it's simple, i weight x amount, and i have two legs, so that's around x/2 for a two legged squat, and around x for a single legged squat (what the hell does it being called pistol have to do with it? ffs it's easier to write anyway), taking into account the weight of the leg itself, which i'm not lifting fully. if john doe weights 2x, he is lifting around x with each leg on a squat, and 2x on a pistol. now a two legged squat is an inherently balanced movement, whereas a pistol is not. for a pistol, you need to keep your bodyweight stable over a single point, while also resisting rotational force on your leg, which adds to the effort, making the pistol more than twice as hard to do as the normal squat, so it stands to reason that if i can do a pistol with proper form, then i should be able to squat more than twice my bodyweight. whatever the end result is, multiply it by two for john doe, and the end results will be hugely different.

Regarding your question, "take two guys with a 30 kilo difference who can both do exactly the same bodyweight feats," the person who is heavier is most likely to be stronger (as I've already said); however, I do think that when somebody has an extra 13.6kg of muscle on him, he should be stronger anyway.

well duh, of course he'll be stronger, because he... wait for it.... moves his own weight, which is greater.

[seiken steve]

The amount you can pistol does not effect your squat much.

As far as workload goes the heavier guy doing a bodyweight movement is moving more weight, he is heavier...

Fun reading: http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/unilateral_movements_make_you_weak

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_top_10_unilateral_exercises

[Fish Of Doom]

*jawdrop*

*turns to ash and is slowly disintegrated by the errant winds*

there goes my argument about pistol squats then :)

[seiken steve]

They're defiantly a great exercise and on you should keep doing.

Take the you and John doe example, when he does a squat and you do a squat with 50kg on your back, theoretically you are shifting the same weight, however doing a squat with BW on your back has a very different hormonal response and muscular recruitment to big John doing a pistol.

FWIW I think pistol is a pretty catchy name

[Fish Of Doom]

pistols ftw. although my argument was more along the lines of, if i'm smaller, i won't shift as much weight as john doe with my own body, so i should increase the load by other means (ie weights) to get to a comparative level of strength. john doe will take more time to be able to do bodyweight feats than i will if he's bigger, so he would at first have no need for additional loading. of course i could move to harder bodyweight variations, but so could john doe.

[Gary]

Just a question, but why worry about 'relative strength'? Why not just get strong? Unless you're competing at a weight class I don't see the positives of being relatively stronger than a guy twice your size but with only one and a half times your strength.

Also how are you calculating relative strength? For arguments sake I'm near enough 90Kg. I can probably knock out about 20+ Dead Hang chinups on a good day. Put me in a 30Kg weight vest and I'll be lucky to get 3. So that's a 33% increase in weight but an 85% decrease in performance, sure it's not muscle but it could be fat. There's no obvious link, and judging different people with different physiology, limb lengths and so on and the calculation is a mine field. Yet people chuck the phrase around like it's an obvious comparison.

[Atre]

Hi, Atre. Are you familiar with Coach Sommer? He's a gymnastics coach (I think for the junior team of the U.S., not sure, though), and he's got a great book and a great forum if you're interested in strength and condition primarily via body weight. He even posts a workout of the day (WOD) 4 days a week!

http://www.gymnasticbodies.com/
Thanks, I've seen the site before but it's always good to be reminded of high-quality resources :)

[Frodocious]

I suggest you try simple and plain physical workout. Start with easy push ups.

I suggest that if you don't have anything else to add to the discussion other than ridiculous 'do pushups' posts, you stop posting or get considered a troll for pointless thread disruption.

[Patrick Smith]

I suggest you try simple and plain physical workout. Start with easy push ups.

http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/obvious_troll.jpg

[Fish Of Doom]

*reads aki oshin's post history*

yeah, what patrick said

[seiken steve]

Alright guys, I think we all ned to calm down, measure our waistline and do some push ups.

[Patrick Smith]

Simply physical push ups are a great to enhance muscle

By the way, Steve, check out your post count. :eek:

[seiken steve]

:devil:
Mwwhaahaha

[Patrick Smith]

what is not correct? when did i ever say my bodyweight changes? i don't even understand what you're trying to say after that.

Do you remember typing this?


i weight 52 kilograms, john doe weights 100. if i do a pistol squat, i'm moving pretty much my full weight on one leg [52 kg] , same for john doe. by doing the easier, bilateral version of the exercise, the weight one can move is actually more than double that of the unilateral version, so i should (at least assuming i had enough ankle mobility and core stability to do a proper pistol instead of those counter-weighted things i do) be able to theoretically squat near 100 kilograms at least once without excessive effort.

That is essentially a 2x body weight squat, no? You weigh 52 kg, you squat 100 kg. 100/52 is 1.92307692, which can be rounded to 2. A 2x body weight squat.

Additionally, you should clarify whether you meant a "pistol" squat or a back/front squat in this section, "...theoretically squat near..."


look, it's simple, i weight x amount, and i have two legs, so that's around x/2 for a two legged squat, and around x for a single legged squat (what the hell does it being called pistol have to do with it? ffs it's easier to write anyway), taking into account the weight of the leg itself, which i'm not lifting fully. if john doe weights 2x, he is lifting around x with each leg on a squat, and 2x on a pistol. now a two legged squat is an inherently balanced movement, whereas a pistol is not. for a pistol, you need to keep your bodyweight stable over a single point, while also resisting rotational force on your leg, which adds to the effort, making the pistol more than twice as hard to do as the normal squat, so it stands to reason that if i can do a pistol with proper form, then i should be able to squat more than twice my bodyweight. whatever the end result is, multiply it by two for john doe, and the end results will be hugely different.

Why are you saying you can't understand what I said? I should be the one saying that. Your big block of text has no capitals, and, quite frankly, is difficult to read. Even if your post made sense, it would still be hard to understand.

If you weigh 50 kg, you are lifting only 50 kg in a SLS/pistol. The maximum amount of weight you can lift without adding external resistance is 50 kg. You could using your ear, it wouldn't matter. Your body weight is your body weight, and it is what it is.

When John Doe, who weighs 100 kg (double your weight) does a SLS, then yes, he is lifting more weight. That is clear, and I've already said this more than once. Even though he is lifting more weight, he also weighs more, so even though you:

a) weigh 50 kg, and
b) can lift 50 kg

and he:

a) weigh 100 kg
b) can lift 100 kg

Your relative strength IS THE SAME.

If he has two times more muscle than you, then he SHOULD be able to lift two times as much weight, no? Or at least something similar. If he can lift less, despite weighing more, than he has less relative strength than you.

now a two legged squat is an inherently balanced movement, whereas a pistol is not. for a pistol, you need to keep your bodyweight stable over a single point, while also resisting rotational force on your leg, which adds to the effort, making the pistol more than twice as hard to do as the normal squat, so it stands to reason that if i can do a pistol with proper form, then i should be able to squat more than twice my bodyweight.

No. That is incorrect.


well duh, of course he'll be stronger, because he... wait for it.... moves his own weight, which is greater.

I know that. I've already said I know that.

(what the hell does it being called pistol have to do with it? ffs it's easier to write anyway)

Parenthesis contain idle, and sometimes a bit disconnected sentences. It doesn't have much bearing on the issue being discussed, but the name "pistol" itself has absolutely nothing to do with squatting with one leg. Plus, it's easier to write SLS for single leg squat, which describes the exercise better anyway.

[Patrick Smith]

Just a question, but why worry about 'relative strength'? Why not just get strong? Unless you're competing at a weight class I don't see the positives of being relatively stronger than a guy twice your size but with only one and a half times your strength.

Also how are you calculating relative strength? For arguments sake I'm near enough 90Kg. I can probably knock out about 20+ Dead Hang chinups on a good day. Put me in a 30Kg weight vest and I'll be lucky to get 3. So that's a 33% increase in weight but an 85% decrease in performance, sure it's not muscle but it could be fat. There's no obvious link, and judging different people with different physiology, limb lengths and so on and the calculation is a mine field. Yet people chuck the phrase around like it's an obvious comparison.

You're right, it is a rather shaky definition. There are many, many factors in determining someones strength in particular movements. However, I have always seen relative strength defined as simply as possible in the weight/strength way. For example, a man weighing 75 kg who deadlifts 200 kg has a 2.6x bodyweight lift, which would be higher than a man weighing 100 kg with the same lift.

In arguments like this, I generally assume that the two individuals in question are identical in limb length and anatomical advantages/disadvantages.

I agree, though. Concentrate on getting beastly strong and lean. Relative strength is only applicable in specific competitions.

[Fish Of Doom]

Do you remember typing this?



That is essentially a 2x body weight squat, no? You weigh 52 kg, you squat 100 kg. 100/52 is 1.92307692, which can be rounded to 2. A 2x body weight squat.

yes? if i interpreted the quotes corrected, i think i said that, then you said "this is not correct" and proceeded to say what i think was the same thing i just said. i then asked you what was not correct, and you once again said the same thing.

Additionally, you should clarify whether you meant a "pistol" squat or a back/front squat in this section, "...theoretically squat near..."
i meant a squat.

Why are you saying you can't understand what I said? I should be the one saying that. Your big block of text has no capitals, and, quite frankly, is difficult to read. Even if your post made sense, it would still be hard to understand.

attacking the way i write will not get you any prizes. i said i did not understand you because you claimed that what i said was incorrect, then you wrote a non-sequitur ("Your body weight remains the same, regardless of whether the exercise is bilateral or unilateral."), then apparently stated the same thing i initially stated. or at least so it appeared to me.

If you weigh 50 kg, you are lifting only 50 kg in a SLS/pistol. The maximum amount of weight you can lift without adding external resistance is 50 kg. You could using your ear, it wouldn't matter. Your body weight is your body weight, and it is what it is.

yes? and?

When John Doe, who weighs 100 kg (double your weight) does a SLS, then yes, he is lifting more weight. That is clear, and I've already said this more than once. Even though he is lifting more weight, he also weighs more, so even though you:

a) weigh 50 kg, and
b) can lift 50 kg

and he:

a) weigh 100 kg
b) can lift 100 kg

Your relative strength IS THE SAME.

If he has two times more muscle than you, then he SHOULD be able to lift two times as much weight, no? Or at least something similar. If he can lift less, despite weighing more, than he has less relative strength than you.

and? i'm not talking about relative strength, i'm talking about absolute strength. what i am saying is that john doe and me do not need to train the same way, because i, by being lighter, will develop bodyweight exercises faster than him, thus maybe will benefit more from adding external weight earlier on, whereas someone heavier can achieve a greater amount of strength than i can using only bodyweight, as if we both were to do the same bodyweight feats, he would be moving a heavier weight than i would be.

No. That is incorrect.

which i have admitted in the last page, along with clarifying what i meant with my argument.

[Patrick Smith]

yes? if i interpreted the quotes corrected, i think i said that, then you said "this is not correct" and proceeded to say what i think was the same thing i just said. i then asked you what was not correct, and you once again said the same thing.

No, this is what happened.

You said:


so, yeah, if you're a small person, you should maybe try to progress to weights early on, whereas if you're bigger, it might be worth investing a little time into bodyweight training even if you already lift weights.

You essentially said small people should move on to weights quickly, and avoid spending too much time with body weight because the amount of weight they would be moving is limited.

Which I disagreed with by saying:

I disagree. Look at professional gymnasts, for example. They are almost exclusively smaller than the average person, use almost strictly body weight exercises, and possess physiques that very few non-gymnasts do. Additionally, tall people are not excluded, as evidenced by a number of tall and successful gymnasts.

I argued that despite what you say about small people's body weight not being enough weight to advance in BW strength training, gymnasts, who are usually smaller than the average person, excel in BW strength.

Then you tried to make a funny by insinuating I had made a totally irrelevant post:

that is... not related to what i said...

But what I said was perfectly relevant to what you said:


Again, I disagree. It's all about relative leverage. A 270 lb guy doing push ups in the standard position is not likely to be working much, if any, harder than the little 140 lb guy doing pseudo planche push ups or even full planche push ups. The opposite would most likely to be true. Leverage is the key, and strength of contraction is the name of the game in resistance training.

Of course, I assume that both individuals are in very good condition physically.

In this post, I am referring to the original question, "are body weight exercises less effective for small people than large people." I am saying that a light and small person can almost always get the same type of intensity of muscular contraction with BW as a big guy.

Instead of debating this, you said:


"take two guys with a 30 kilo difference who can both do exactly the same bodyweight feats"


Which was not relevant to my disagreement. In fact, I was not necessarily disagreeing with the first paragraph of your original post (which you continually and mistakenly defended), since what I said was only relevant to the second paragraph.

Then we began discussing relative strength, and as Coma already said, it's rather hard to define relative strength. There are many, many variables involved. It's a good discussion, but you need to understand, first and foremost, exactly what I was disagreeing with in the first place. I admit that the argument changed directions quite a bit, but my original point remains, as do most of my comments about relative strength.


i meant a squat.


It is still wrong.


attacking the way i write will not get you any prizes. i said i did not understand you because you claimed that what i said was incorrect, then you wrote a non-sequitur ("Your body weight remains the same, regardless of whether the exercise is bilateral or unilateral."), then apparently stated the same thing i initially stated. or at least so it appeared to me.


I am not attacking the way you write, but you said you did not understand what I was trying to say, and then proceeded to write a big block of text with no capitals, which are very helpful in reading a big block text.

i don't even understand what you're trying to say after that.


yes? and?


And? And what you said about a BW SLS being able to transfer into a 2x BW squat is incorrect.


and? i'm not talking about relative strength, i'm talking about absolute strength. what i am saying is that john doe and me do not need to train the same way, because i, by being lighter, will develop bodyweight exercises faster than him, thus maybe will benefit more from adding external weight earlier on, whereas someone heavier can achieve a greater amount of strength than i can using only bodyweight, as if we both were to do the same bodyweight feats, he would be moving a heavier weight than i would be.

And like I already said, this is where you are wrong.Yes, if two superhuman people (one small, one large) were BOTH able to do the HIGHEST progression of BW exercises possible, then yes, the big guy would be stronger.

But that is not the case, nor will it very likely ever be. Small and light people like you can use BW exercises for a LONG time before you find a need to switch to weights (likely never). Also, as I already said, this ONLY refers to UPPER BODY. Lower body weighted lifts like the DL, BS, FS, SQ, and O-lifts are great for anybody not going strictly for gymnastics.

There are sufficient BW exercise progressions available to small and large people for anyone to be able to spend quite a few years mastering them before having to add a lot of external weight.

For example, where a big guy may find it challenging to do 20 lean push ups (push ups with hands positioned near hips), a lighter fellow who may or may not be stronger does not, so he moves to a higher progression like psuedo planche push ups or even full planche push ups.

I am not interested in seeing you executed for your misconception about BW training. Let's wrap this up and move on to the real discussion of relative strength if that is what you want to do.

Respectfully,

Patrick

[Fish Of Doom]

it would appear i am not being able to convey that i am not saying what you claim i'm saying. let us leave it at that as i have no wish to debate the issue further, as it appears you are also ignoring parts of my posts.

[TaeAno]

I'm pretty sure you can gain muscle mass without weights but won't get as good results I assume. I do lift weights and I believe that if you control yourself correctly, you can avoid overbulking yourself. If i'm not mistaken, diet also plays a part in this.

[seiken steve]

I'm pretty sure you can gain muscle mass without weights but won't get as good results I assume. I do lift weights and I believe that if you control yourself correctly, you can avoid overbulking yourself. If i'm not mistaken, diet also plays a part in this.

That could be possible depending on the sort of physical exercise you opted to work out

Aki, would you care to explain what exercises cause bulk and which don't? because if you know something the rest of the world doesn’t then I’d like to know too.
P.S.If you say push ups I will scream.

[Kuma]

I'm pretty sure you can gain muscle mass without weights but won't get as good results I assume. I do lift weights and I believe that if you control yourself correctly, you can avoid overbulking yourself. If i'm not mistaken, diet also plays a part in this.

"Overbulking" is pretty much impossible without steroids.

[seiken steve]

What even is it?

Overbulking is a pretty innocuous term IMO.
Unless your confined to a weight class then extra bodyweight is rarely going to be a bad thing.

[Patrick Smith]

I'm pretty sure you can gain muscle mass without weights but won't get as good results I assume. I do lift weights and I believe that if you control yourself correctly, you can avoid overbulking yourself. If i'm not mistaken, diet also plays a part in this.

There are other great threads about this. Generally, in my opinion, the best way is to go with both, leaning towards heavy body weight work for the upper body and weights for the lower body. You'd be hardpressed to find people stronger in the upper body than gymnasts, but if you're not strictly a gymnast, hit those deadlifts, squats, and weighted lower body lifts!

[Kuma]

You'd be hardpressed to find people stronger in the upper body than gymnasts,

There's different types of strength, so while a gymnast may be strong in some areas he may not be the strongest in others. Hossein Rezazadeh may not be able to do an Iron Cross, but his clean and jerk of 579.7lbs/263.5kg isn't going to be mimicked by any gymnast any time soon.

[Patrick Smith]

There's different types of strength, so while a gymnast may be strong in some areas he may not be the strongest in others. Hossein Rezazadeh may not be able to do an Iron Cross, but his clean and jerk of 579.7lbs/263.5kg isn't going to be mimicked by any gymnast any time soon.

I agree, Kuma, which is why I consider the Olympic lifts and lower body lifts to be extremely important for well-rounded athletes and non-gymnasts.

[Estrix]

Thought I'd throw my 2 cents worth of research in the ring, might not sure exactly how much bearing it has though :P

Firstly, I would suggest that the modern idea of weight lifting comes to us from the Victorian/Edwardian practices of "wellness" which included the creation of centres who's activities including the use of weights. Followed of course by the evolution of the strongman and a steadily more refined use of weights and weight lifting in exercise regimes as people began to better understand the workings of muscles.

However, that being said, there is evidence that weights were used by the ancient Greeks to deliberately sculpt their body shape. Considering they did all their wrestling etc naked that makes sense I guess.

So weight lifting has a long history indeed.

Having said that, it would seem that in most ages, people became "Fit for purpose" (a slogan the Edwardians would later popularise). This is to say that we became strong by doing. Until fairly recently life was a mostly manual affair, and simply by living you became strong (OK this might not apply to upper classes). I'll furnish a few examples:
1) Of course our ancient history is full of examples of tribal cultures who's warriors were strong because their cultures made them so. A good example would be the vikings, evidence suggests they were good at fighting because they were extremely well trained. They became good by being "fit for purpose"
2) Maybe a better example is that of the anglo-saxon citizen soldier. A man was required to be prepared for war whenever he was called. The Anglo-Saxons were strong not because they trained for war (indeed the entire system was deeply inefficient but that's another story). Their lives working the fields and working hard made them strong.
3) For a time in medieval England it was required that each man give 4 hours on a Saturday(or maybe Sunday, I forget) to Longbow practice. I don't know about you but I can't draw a bow for 4 hours. Some of the bows found on the wreck of the Mary Rose are reputed to have a draw weight of 180lbs+

Anyway, allow these three examples to serve for the moment so I can conclude the point I was trying to reach lol.

In short, the idea of going to the gym and lifting weights simply for the purpose of building muscle is, historically at least, a little crazy. Strength arose not from the simple building of muscle but from training to fulfil a purpose. Indeed most "training" while it may have involved something outside of the body (bows, swords, armour etc) the end goal was not so much on of strength as one of skill. Musculature was, by in large, the side effect. So I think that if you train hard at your choose skill (in this case martial arts) then the strength requirement will flow naturally from that.

I hope this makes some form of sense, but I'm very tired so I apologise if it doesn't

[Gary]

"Overbulking" is pretty much impossible without steroids.

What even is it?

Overbulking is a pretty innocuous term IMO.
Unless your confined to a weight class then extra bodyweight is rarely going to be a bad thing.
I wish I could overbulk :(

[Patrick Smith]

Estrix, good post. I like your approach.

However, a gym is just a location where there are training instructors and equipment. It could just as easily be your backyard. Don't you think that the vikings had training camps/bases where they had targets and drill instructors? That's been going on forever.

[Estrix]

Estrix, good post. I like your approach.

However, a gym is just a location where there are training instructors and equipment. It could just as easily be your backyard. Don't you think that the vikings had training camps/bases where they had targets and drill instructors? That's been going on forever.

Glad you liked the approach, I was a little worried it hadn't come out quite like I wanted it to lol.

I do agree that the Vikings probably had training camps, indeed there is evidence that they were so highly trained that this is almost certainly the case.

I'd also agree that a gym could just be your backyard. However what I am really arguing against is the modern habit of simply going to the gym and lifting weights simply to sculpt the body. I am suggesting that it is the idea of "fitness for purpose" that should be foremost in our minds. It is against the modern "gym bunny" culture that I'm really arguing. This seeming obsession with endlessly lifting weights which achieve (in my opinion) little or nothing beyond the cosmetic. Even though the Greeks used weights to sculpt the body, it was still in addition to for example, their wrestling training.

But to return more fully to the point of the topic I would say that for most of human history, any weight training came not directly through simply lifting a weight over and over, but through the use of skill, either through the plough or the smiths hammer or the endurance of the hunter; or the weights were the sword and the shield and the armour. The strength of the man arose through his skills.

So I would say that if I want to become good at my kung fu I train harder and longer, and the strength will flow as a side effect from practising that skill. It is that link between strength (and indeed health) arising through the continual hard training of skills that gives rise to fitness for purpose.

[Patrick Smith]

Glad you liked the approach, I was a little worried it hadn't come out quite like I wanted it to lol.

I do agree that the Vikings probably had training camps, indeed there is evidence that they were so highly trained that this is almost certainly the case.

I'd also agree that a gym could just be your backyard. However what I am really arguing against is the modern habit of simply going to the gym and lifting weights simply to sculpt the body. I am suggesting that it is the idea of "fitness for purpose" that should be foremost in our minds. It is against the modern "gym bunny" culture that I'm really arguing. This seeming obsession with endlessly lifting weights which achieve (in my opinion) little or nothing beyond the cosmetic. Even though the Greeks used weights to sculpt the body, it was still in addition to for example, their wrestling training.

But to return more fully to the point of the topic I would say that for most of human history, any weight training came not directly through simply lifting a weight over and over, but through the use of skill, either through the plough or the smiths hammer or the endurance of the hunter; or the weights were the sword and the shield and the armour. The strength of the man arose through his skills.

So I would say that if I want to become good at my kung fu I train harder and longer, and the strength will flow as a side effect from practising that skill. It is that link between strength (and indeed health) arising through the continual hard training of skills that gives rise to fitness for purpose.

I see what you're saying, but athletes, and I mean REAL athletes, train only for athletic excellence (be it combat-based, football, etc.). They don't just train to sculpt their bodies and look good in a bikini (gosh, I hate those people). When someone goes to the gym (or his back yard) to focus on strength development to supplement his combat skills, surely it is just as legitimate and warrior-worthy as simply practicing the kung fu technicals.

Skill work is undoubtedly the most important part of any athletic-like behavior, be it real combat or a regular ol' sport. However, strength, flexibility, speed, and rehab+prehab are all vital to perform the technical skill at the highest level. Training to the gym is ONLY to enhance technical skill, but it is essential nevertheless.

[seiken steve]

I'd also agree that a gym could just be your backyard. However what I am really arguing against is the modern habit of simply going to the gym and lifting weights simply to sculpt the body. I am suggesting that it is the idea of "fitness for purpose" that should be foremost in our minds. It is against the modern "gym bunny" culture that I'm really arguing. This seeming obsession with endlessly lifting weights which achieve (in my opinion) little or nothing beyond the cosmetic. Even though the Greeks used weights to sculpt the body, it was still in addition to for example, their wrestling training.


So I would say that if I want to become good at my kung fu I train harder and longer, and the strength will flow as a side effect from practising that skill. It is that link between strength (and indeed health) arising through the continual hard training of skills that gives rise to fitness for purpose.

I would say that if I wanted to be strong then picking up heavy stuff (including myself) is surely the best way to go about it?

When I'm pulling a Deadlifts with callouses full of chalk and bleeding or squatting in a rack with a big ol weight on my back I can assure you that it is not aesthetics on my mind.
There is a difference between bodybuilding and athletic development, and while being 'fit for purpose' is great and all lifting weights is just another tool to achieve that.

[FRT]

You can build muscle with bodyweight alone. To make serious gains, the key to this is making your own bodyweight feel like it's way more than it is. For example;

A pushup? Easy. A one armed pushup? You might think twice about it!

So basically, you can make your own weight seem ridiculously heavier than it is by reducing contact points as one way. Fighting gravity is also a great way, which is your rope climb and pullups, and anything else going up. Another way is to put yourself into positions where your body is naturally weak. It's an extreme example and a bad one to use, but look at people who can do the "human flag". There is no way their body was strong in that position naturally, they had to work their weaker muscles to do that. I have no idea how to train for an exercise like that!

Train Harder!