.
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /fit/ - Fitness
You are currently reading a thread in /fit/ - Fitness
weights
Calisthenics
Calisthenics
>>35150246
Weights will make you a manlet
weights
For what purpose?
Calisthenics is suboptimal, to put it mildly, for strength training, but most sport specific training is calisthenic, and it's pretty good for most conditioning goals.
Weight training is hilariously superior for strength training, and obviously much better for training specific to barbell sports.
I think for general health most people should do weight training to start.
no gains vs gains
>>35150226
Calisthenics pros:
You can do it anywhere without any cost
Both.
Work on calisthenics for difficulty progression. When you've reached mastery for these exercises, you can proceed to add weight. This is how I'm currently doing it.
Weights only might lead to faster gains initially, but this is really only due to people not doing calisthenics optimally. You will see gains either way.I like being able to do one armed pushups and one leg squats. If you're not desperate for muscle, calisthenics are worth it in the end since you will still end up being stronger.
It's stupid to dismiss the benefits of either path. Just do what will help you continue to make it.
>>35153162
>calisthenics are worth it in the end since you will still end up being stronger.
Whats your definition of strength?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx45nUETmIA
>>35153232
I don't mean stronger than using weights, just stronger than when you started exercising.
>>35152086
You are also much less likely to be injured and it's much easier on your joints
>>35153299
The latter bit isn't actually true. Its stressful in a different way to lifting weights, but the harder bodyweight movements tend to be brutal on your joints.
>>35150226
You can make decent gains with calisthenics and get really strong and be able to impress normies with all the cool shit you can do. If your gonna go that route i would do calisthenics til you get really good and your gains start to slow down then i would add some barbell training in addition.
>>35153299
>>35153319
Much less likely to be injured as opposed to what? In both if you exercise carefully, you are highly unlikely to be injured. If you're an idiot in both then you're likely to be injured. Personally I think most people are so out of touch with tendon conditioning and mobility that higher tier bodyweight skills are much more likely to damage you. People realise when dips are getting too hard, but they'll beat their elbows into the dirt with pullups and straight-arm skills quite easily.
For losing weight which is better?
Lets say Ive been doing barbell training and switch to cal for upperbody. So I'll be training ULxULxx.
Am I going to need to reduce my calories on days that I only do calisthenics? Are they, on average, less calorically demanding than barbell training?
Sorry if sill question, pls no bullt
Well lets see
For Functional strength
Weights>calisthenics
More efficient
Weights>calisthenics
for balanced physique
Weights>calisthenics
>>35154681
Neither really. Weightloss is dependent on your diet. Strenght training, be it weightlifting or cali is mostly there to help you retain muscle mass while cutting. If you want to burn more calories then add cardio.
>>35153243
Romano Rengel <3
In all seriousness, weights will make you stronger but calisthenics will make you leaner and enhance your endurance. Unlike weight training, calisthenics do not tolerate higher bf% so as you get better you will start leaning out.
For beginners, however, weights is the way to go. Most people can't do one good push-up, let alone pull-ups, close-stance push-ups or volume push-ups.
Both.
Weights are the best for overall hypertrophy and strength gains, but calisthenics are also good for progression in bodyweight exercises.
>>35154908
but you forgot
for impressing others
calisthenics>weights
>>35154852
Not really, or if there is a difference it will be slight. As long as intensity and volume is similar, the muscles will be forced to do similar amounts of work and will thus need a similar amount of energy.
>>35150226
Ahem...
https://www.t-nation.com/training/all-muscle-no-iron
gymnastics > calisthenics > weights
Weightlifting is simply more practical, easier to progress in, and benefits come sooner.
Wouldn't discard calisthenics though. Plus, you can easily buy some weights, and do weighted exercises, if you want more strength.
>>35150387
That looks heavy.
Can only do one pull up master race reporting in
>>35150226
False dichotomy.
Do whatever works.
>>35154908
>Well lets see
>For Functional strength
>Weights>calisthenics
>More efficient
>Weights>calisthenics
>for balanced physique
>Weights>calisthenics
Keep telling yourself that
>>35150387
Ancient greek mode unlocked
>>35150226
both better, you can't develop balanced upper/lower in calisthenics
>>35157885
What are pistol squats?
>>35150226
IMO overall weights are superior, 3 hours a week of weight training can get you much stronger, faster, swoler than 3 hours of calisthenics could in 3 hours per week, heck calisthenics would require much more than 3 hours should you for example want a gymnasts manlet body.
>>35150390
I think both work good together. Might be interesting to periodise in line with bulking and cutting (cut and calisthenics and bulk and strength) but I have yet to need to.
And why can't you do both? I travell a lot
>>35157992
One leg squatting, the other held out in front.
