Calisthenics vs Free Weights

I never even thought of that benefit. Even just a sturdy branch would do for pull ups into muscle ups - and you won't be in a sweaty gym.

I'm going to give it a go. It sounds really hard though. Some of the stuff my friend did... holy ****.

Yep. Though I've already achieved those aims with free weights (I've been working out for years), I was curious about switching entirely to calisthenics for long term maintenance more than anything else.

I'm actually having a bit of trouble getting a routine together - is there anything I can have a look at?

The thing with bodyweight is that you're limited by what you weigh. You have to get creative with your exercises to maintain a challenging level of resistance. It's possible to become strong if you do it right and have the right equipment but I personally struggled. In the gym you can add 1.25kg each time, which makes it a lot easier in my opinion.

unless i do the burpees (i'm talking about exercises not on treadmill) I cannot push myself that hard (90% or higher of my max heart rate) without some sort of weights- either kettlebells (which are my favourites) or dumbbells. I usually use some sort of free weights unless i do running/bleep/stairs

Sorry but that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard regarding fitness.

You cannot get your heart rate to 90%+ without weights?

Maybe I misunderstand, so do explain more what you mean, but that sounds crazy. Firstly that you cannot go above without weights,

and secondly, that you even want to go above that for lifting.

I never go close to 90% when I lift (and I include my own bodyweight in lift).

If your heart is the muscle that pumps the most when you are training muscles, seems to me like you are doing something wrong.

i'll do my best to elaborate



well... maybe i've overdramatized a bit. not 90, but closer to 85% (give or take).

there are only two exercises, performed without the extra weight, that get my heart pumping so nicely- running fast on treadmill (sorta bleep test or just intervals) or burpees. if I wish to do the other exercises and I wish to get them vigorously then I have to use some sort of weights (kettlebells, dumbbels, iron bar with plates etc).even if I do, let say, push ups (without the extra weight) or ab crunches there is simply no way to work myself up so badly. sure, i'd get tired, but heart rate wouldn't go so high.

when i do the lifting (mostly squats or deadlifts or military presses etc) I exercise for an endurance. i usually tend to do about 100 squats (or more) in few sets of increasing amount of repetitions (sort of). let say- today I do 10x10@70kg, few days later i'll do 10x12@70kg, after another few days it will be 15 squats in a set (but there will be fewer sets, maybe 6 or 7 depends if i'll manage etc). after i'll easily do at least 100 (120 or 125 preferably) with 25 squats in every set with certain weight, I go higher with the weight- either 5 or 10kg starting with fewer reps in set).



someone is doing it wrong . nah, just kidding. different goals, different ways to achieve it.




that's the bit that I do not understand. please, elaborate.
S

So you have never done the most iconic exercise ever - running up stairs or skip rope a la Rocky? If that doesn't get you above 90 you have a weird body, I am sorry but it's true. Or try the insanity workout.

Try insanity.

But I still can't get why you need weights to go above. Like just sprint. And rest. And sprint again. You don't get above 90???

Surely above 90. The healthy range foe a resting heart rate is 60-100. Obviously v fit people are below 60 but 90 is still ridiculously low

i did the stairs, but it isn't really my favourite exercise. but yeah, i forgot to mention it. mea culpa. rope skipping isn't for me. nah. it isn't for me- at least not in the way they perform it at my local gym. but for 12.99 per month i do not expect a lot tbh As I wrote- unless I'm on a treadmill (which, to some except the stair-machine is as well) or do the burpees I cannot get closer to 85%. If I run on the treadmill, then i can reach it easily (i don't like to run outside). and yes, i do intervals sometimes. I didn't say "above 90 bpm" but above 90% (~85% would be more accurate) of my maximal heart rate. that's the difference, if you wonder how I did manage to know it here is a formula: HR(max) = 205.8- (0.685 x age) So, let say I'm 25 years old (i wish i would be again!), it would be 188.675 ~ 189 Then you check your resting rate [HR(rest)]= for most healthy adults it's between 50 and 90 bpm. let's say it's 70 bpm. 189 - 70 = 119 119/10 = 11.9 (so now we know the increase of 10%) so let's say you wish exercise between 60% and 85% of your heart rate range- 70 + 6*11.9 = 141.4 ~ 141 70 + 8.5*11.9 = 171.15 ~ 171 so the exercise that pushes your heart between 141bpm and 171 would be fine. but, frankly speaking, there are very ways to calculate that.

Interesting, I have not come across that calculation for % before. I always thought it would literally be just 0.6*Max to 0.85*Max (for your example of 60% to 85%).

I wish it would be so simple
you need to know your resting heart rate (usually 50-90), your maximal heart rate (I've shown it in my previous post), knowing that you know your hr reserve.
but it seems that my heart rate monitor app do not agree with wikipedia anyway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate
here is the

Well according to Wikipedia that was the simple method, and yours is the "Karvonen Method".

I guess it would be good to know the difference, for when there are studies that talk about HR % it would matter which way you calculate the %

Hi.

From the start of my fitness life, I've always used free weights (and from time to time, machines, to really push myself).

However, the other day I was in the gym with a new friend of mine, and he was telling me about calisthenics.

He has trained for 5 years purely on his own body weight. We talked about using own bodyweight vs free weights, and the benefits and cons of either side.

His results speak for themselves - the guy is fairly defined, his body is well proportioned, he has a great range of motion, and his flexibility is really high.

It got me thinking - is calisthenics the way to go? For long term health mainly (I have a job where I need to keep my body is top shape), is training with your bodyweight the healthiest way? Keeping it all natural, exploring different range of motions, incorporating gymnastic exercises in order to properly target all muscle groups, etc.

What do you think?

I tried Calisthenics when I first started working out by I found it very frustrating because I started with literally 0 strength and the progressions are far from perfectly linear so to get better at the movements takes a lot of dedication which I didn't have.

I do some now that I am a bit stronger and it is quite good fun but from speaking to a lot of people who do Calisthenics a lot recommend mixing it with free weights especially for you legs as Calisthenics just wont give you results in terms of leg strength.