Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Calisthenics vs Free Weights Watch

    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kagutsuchi)
    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. :tongue:

    I'm going to give it a go. It sounds really hard though. Some of the stuff my friend did... holy ****.
    It is supposedly much better on your joints than weightlifting, and in general as you said trains flexibility. And yes, some of the stuff looks super amazing.

    I am currently practicing the L-Sit and the front lever. With the L-Sit I am convinced the main reason I can't do it yet is my lack of flexibility, though I am working on that. With the lever I can now hold the tucked front lever (mind you still in the more rounded phase, not yet with a totally straight back and 90 degree legs).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kagutsuchi)
    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?
    https://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightf...mended_routine

    Good start. Also has links to even more sources. I am still a beginner but I researched a lot and then used this as a baseline and added a few things, or changed others (e.g. I am not going to simply do 3 sets of 4-8 reps and move to harder variation once I manage 3x8, I made a plan for more variation in the components of volume over time), so if you have been lifting for years I am sure you will find an adaption that works for you.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    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.
    I don't find this a problem at all. There are multiple variations of each exercise, each a progression. You could do a cycle of very intense low volume strength training by doing versions that you can barely do maybe 3-6 RM followed by a hypertrophy cycle by doing an easier variation for more reps.

    Also, you could use a light dumbbell for some exercises just between your feet. For dips and yes pull ups too because strict ones your feet shouldn't be all over the place anyway. And what was easy is suddenly challenging again.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon_g)
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Sorry but that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard regarding fitness.
    i'll do my best to elaborate

    (Original post by yudothis)
    You cannot get your heart rate to 90%+ without weights?
    well... maybe i've overdramatized a bit. not 90, but closer to 85% (give or take).

    (Original post by yudothis)
    Maybe I misunderstand, so do explain more what you mean, but that sounds crazy. Firstly that you cannot go above without weights,
    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.

    (Original post by yudothis)
    and secondly, that you even want to go above that for lifting.
    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).

    (Original post by yudothis)
    I never go close to 90% when I lift (and I include my own bodyweight in lift).
    someone is doing it wrong . nah, just kidding. different goals, different ways to achieve it.


    (Original post by yudothis)
    If your heart is the muscle that pumps the most when you are training muscles, seems to me like you are doing something wrong.
    that's the bit that I do not understand. please, elaborate.
    S
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon_g)
    i'll do my best to elaborate



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


    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.
    Try insanity.



    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
    Ok, I suppose when you go for endurance though, you don't go for building muscle. I can see why you would want to now.

    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???

    And well if you are going for endurance rather than hypertrophy (building muscle mass) then it doesn't matter that your heart pumps more. In fact when I cycle which technically can be very demanding on all your leg muscles and very highly intense (see sprinters they have HUGE thighs) I would also go for endurance and try to not overexert my muscles - go for a lower gear but faster pedaling speed, i.e. work heart more.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    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.
    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.
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Try insanity.
    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
    (Original post by yudothis)
    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???
    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.
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    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 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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon_g)
    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%).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    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

    ////
    crap, i've miscalculated something in the past
    yeah, i can get ~85% doing "normal" cardio, doing kettlebells and burpees i'm getting ~95%
    anyway, i'll have to count % again.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon_g)
    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 %
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    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 %
    I agree totally
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kagutsuchi)
    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'm working with my body weight to improve my *erm* "muscles".
    I have no muscles compared to my friends, so I've had enough of being a skinny little runt!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by renlok)
    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.
    Depends on your goals.

    Having yuuuge legs will hinder your human flag or front lever attempts.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Do both, but focus on weight training
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 13, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.