Bodyweight Training + Chicken or the Egg

Here is a question I've been thinking about lately and I'd like to get people's opinions:

I've trained in all sorts of gyms: olympic lifting, as a college athlete I trained in Div. I weight room, powerlifting, commercial gyms etc.

I've found one thing to be true. Anyone who possesses great bodyweight strength usually as defined by high tension gymnast moves is almost always the most "yoked" gym in the room and usually one of the leanest as well.

So are leaner stronger people more attracted to feats of bodyweight strength? Because this is the argument I see used on campus with regards to a big running back, a tall bball player, a lean 100m sprinter. Or is the nature of bodyweight exercise somehow causing such dramatic results.

I believe that is has to do with bodyweight exercise which moves a body at tension through space, rather than some other object. I know when I got back into bodyweight moves I immediately got leaner at the same weight despite not changing my diet. And I already trained with weights and sprinting 5x a week.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

I reckon that switching to mostly bodyweight exercises (esp. Gymnastic Contitioning) requires a person to take a good look at their ego. I know I had to. Maybe people who are that committed to getting in shape also take more care with their nutrition, rest, scheduling, etc?

I thought I was in pretty good shape until I started out with BW stuff. Now I know I'm weak (and a bit fat) and feel much more motivated about my eating and training ...because I wouldn't get anywhere if I wasn't.

If you're doing squats in the Gym, even with a reasonably light weight, you're still one of those hardcore free-weight types. If you're plugging along with your tuck planche in the corner in sets of 0:10 ...you're weird, and seem to be a little weak - well, they do look so easy

As regards body type. It is my belief that this strongly dictates what sporting arena you can excel in, and even in some cases what you do for your own enjoyment, since people like to be good at their sport. At high levels, different sports definitely seem to have a shape attached to them. This seems to become less defined as the level declines to purely recreational levels.

For example, here in the UK (in my experience) in contrast to highly trained professional players, a lot of Sunday league football (soccer) players mostly need: a beer belly, a smoker's cough, a big mouth and a willingness to fight other out-of-shape people (since for some that seems to be the point). I joke, but sadly only a little.

Cheers,

George.

the reason why bw trainers are lean because most of this exercises require having as little as possible extra weight on yourself. try to imagine a 6' 225 pound powerlifter doing a planche or an iron cross. it is probably impossible because of his weight altough he possess extreme upper body strength. he is strong but he is also heavy. while a gymnast/climber/breakdancer is light yet strong thus allowing him to do extreme bw feats. someone with more knowledge may explain this better.

All good stuff guys. I understand the powerlifter analogy but lets put that aside for a minute. Lets look at just an average population of gym goers. When I go to train obviously the biggest problem is the lack of intensity and focus. Putting that aside it just strikes me that people who focus on bodyweight strength regardless of present size shape etc seem to achieve better and faster results than those who lift weights. Now for hypertrophy weights and unparalled. Im simply referring to the vast majority of people that want to be leaner etc. I think there is some magic in performing higher tension/ intensity bodyweight work.

spider_pig said:

the reason why bw trainers are lean because most of this exercises require having as little as possible extra weight on yourself.

...I don't think they're lean because the exercises require less extra weight, but I you're on the money that it is an advantage in terms of performance. The lean-ness is ultimately from a combination of proper nutrition, and hard training. If they weren't lean, they'd be exactly as strong, but unable to do such advanced exercises.

In terms of body composition, I believe Robb Wolf has stated elsewhere that (in his experience) without nutritional changes, progress from just training hard will be greatly reduced. I think the reverse is also true to a lesser extent?

(Please let me know and/or delete that para if I'm misquoting you, Robb)

I'm sure one of the 'experts' on here can explain better, but I think a lot of it comes down to the %max that you're training, rep/set structure and all that? In the book Starting Strength, it mentions that 1-3 reps/set is mainly strength, 5-15 reps/set for hypertrophy, and anything above that is increasing muscular endurance (I think I remembered right)?

I'd guess they're progressing faster with BW because (initially at least) they are focussing solely on getting stronger, not simply on getting big muscles? It's much easier to coast along with weights, which is mostly unavoidable with BW - unless you're settling for knee-pushups and assisted chins as a final goal, rather than pull-ups, dips, HSPU, etc!

Working for strength is hard work, which most gym-goers tend to avoid ...as if simply turning up makes some difference!? If they can lift 50kg for 15 reps, they could probably lift 55kg for 10 reps, and maybe 60kg for 3-5 reps ...but they don't.

I reckon laziness has a lot to do with it as well, just picking up a weight, thinking "that's a little light" and choosing to do a few extra reps/sets rather than bothering to a) spend a few minutes seeing what a better weight would be, or b) actually keep a log/plan with some kind of progression in mind. Also it's quite boring. Would you feel happier getting another 10kg on the bar, or getting your first BW pull-up, HSPU or planche!?

I hope I'm not in trouble with Robb! :shock:

-= G =-

Weight lifting = isolation (except compound lifts)

Bodyweight = coordination (if you do it right)

You strengthen your whole body faster which leads to more advanced skills which leads to getting stronger faster which leads to more advanced skills and so on.

with weight lifting gains seem much more linear, in useful strength anyway.

I think bodyweight is more complex and you use more(compound), in most lifting there is just one specific movement unless you are doing Olympic which is the only lifts I usually do, now with body weight, you are using your own body against its self using those stabilizers called joints and working all those small muscles hardly used unless you are supporting your body weight. Rings is a perfect example along with pommel, why do you get such fat arms, well because you are working against the tension and leverage that your body creates which is hard to do otherwise.

Increased proprioception and muscular recruitment due to progressive loading bodyweight exercises make them a bit superior to weights for upper body at least. For example, planche work you're learning how to hold and move your body in space which is giving the proprioception and when you compare it to bench you're recruiting much more muscles groups due to the decreased leverage as opposed to adding on more weight. Not a good analogy by any means, but it serves to illustrate the point.

Weights for lower body are debatable (IMHO) because it depends how you structure a program. Explosive work which gymnastics require should definitely have a reactive plyometric component involved including other explosive work. Heavy weights are not needed but they can supplement well.

Thanks for all the replies so far guys. Brandx, those are my thoughts as well that the total overall recruitment levels due to proprioception,etc increase the training effect. In Coach S's old interview with T-nation he also talks about the importance of max contraction when training bodyweight, which increases tension levels which greatly amplify the training effect. I might add as well that Scott Abel a pretty well known bodybuilding coach has recently begun to use numerous bodyweight variations due to what he perceives as greater tension levels, increased cosmestic results and overall better kinesthetic awareness from this kind of work

braindx said:

Increased proprioception and muscular recruitment due to progressive loading bodyweight exercises make them a bit superior to weights for upper body at least. For example, planche work you're learning how to hold and move your body in space which is giving the proprioception and when you compare it to bench you're recruiting much more muscles groups due to the decreased leverage as opposed to adding on more weight. Not a good analogy by any means, but it serves to illustrate the point.

Weights for lower body are debatable (IMHO) because it depends how you structure a program. Explosive work which gymnastics require should definitely have a reactive plyometric component involved including other explosive work. Heavy weights are not needed but they can supplement well.

I would like to start by addressing the first question about lighter bodies and bodyweight training. I actually lost 55lbs (no I am not kidding) when I started doing bodyweight exercises back 5 years ago on my fathers total gym. I could not do a single pullup back then and I made it my goal to be able to pull my 230lb body above the bar. I later discovered Pavel's "naked warrior" training and it helped when I threw my shoulder out doing a dive roll over a picnic table ( I had landed on a rock and couldn't do bench presses for months). Bodyweight training should be the foundation of any routine (IMO).

I think one of the biggest problems I have seen even in MY gym is that people have NEVER experienced things outside of "traditional" bodybuilding exercises. On the other hand there are so many trainers out there trying to put forward so many exercises that are "functional" which is the other MAJOR problem in the fitness community. Its like "look like a bodybuilder but lift like a coach potato" attitude. Everyone is looking for a quick fix and they all want abs when if they just did the exercises that are the most basic (i.e. bodyweight exercise) they would get a nice muscular body (also keeping in mind diet). It seems that in our recent cultural development, nobody has drive/determination/"willpower"/focus to do ANYTHING. I guess thats what amazes people about advanced athletes. It's too bad our culture couldn't focus more on not adding preservatives and increasing daily activity. Narcissism is the name of the game and people play it so often.

To get back to a point: proprioception is a skill that at first requires someone to be "present" at the time of doing an exercise. Most people don't have the "time" to do that and instead get lost in a monotony of repetitions and numbers and never go back to their body. I personally have found that watching my form during my routine has allowed me to advance at light speed and I honestly get bored trying to "just get a good PUMP".

In closing (and IMO): Function>Failure.

Sorry for the rant.

Excellent discussion, gentlemen! Thank you, I am enjoying it immensely.

As George mentioned previously, with weights it is possible to replicate the movement WITHOUT replicating the load. This has advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps most pertinent to this discussion is that it often allows us to con ourselves into believing that we are working harder and have accomplished more than is truly the case. "I'm doing the same exercises/workout as that great athlete over there" is often stated, but seldom true. With bodyweight training this kind of deception is simply not possible. Your progress, stagnation, or even back sliding, is evident in every movement and exercise.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Coach and Everyone,

Didn't realize people were still having a go at this. All of the responses have been spot on. I thought I'd add a bit more to this as I've thought about a few more things:

In my original post I attempted mainly to take on the one of the biggest myths, and loads of crap out there, which is this excuse of "genetics" that we often seen thrown around. I mean how many times have I, or probably most of you been on a fitness board of any kind, and a newbie or someone else poses a question and they are hit with; "well you can't look at them they are the genetic elite". I am sick and tired of that comment, and hopefully Coach Sommer will back me up here. We are selling people limitations not possibilities with that kind of talk. One of the big criticisms of people's empirical observations about athletes is always met by some guy pointing to some BS study, and then saying plus you can't look at gymnasts, ruggers, footballers, etc. bc they are the GENETIC elite. What a load of crap, I went to Cal and played rugby there, we had an accomplished gymnastics team and i saw these guys everyday. The ringmen looked like bodybuilders 365 days a year. Now you average guru would yell "well those are the genetic elite!" you cant look at what they do. And here is why that is a limiting and ultimately BS answer, Im sorry but gymnastics in America does not on the whole get the genetic elite. This is not meant as offensive, it is fact. The genetic elite exist in all sports and probably in America you will find a majority of them in the “moneyâ€