Do you workout? And if so, how often?

[BigStar]

9 hours ago, robblok said:

Bodyweight can be nice to begin with but after a few months is a limiting factor. That is why weights were invented to create an easier way to get progressive overload on the body.

Oh, bodyweight can be "nice" after a few months, too.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=bodyweight+training+transformation&pws=0&gl=us&tbm=isch

 

In fact merely lifting weights can be a limiting factor--for doing gymnastics, hence gymnasts don't do all that much of it. Different goals. I suspect anyone reading this thread, except for yourself, would be quite happy to achieve and maintain forever the level of fitness shown in many of the above examples. ????

 

Functional strength with health (avoiding injury and repetitive motion stress) is probably the more realistic goal than becoming Arnold, esp for the long haul. How's your most recent injury, the shoulder, doing, BTW?

 

Quote

There are plenty of really strong guys who cannot demonstrate a big lift with a heavy weight -- because they do not practice such things -- but this does not mean they are not strong. I've met plenty of formidable guys on the jiu jitsu and wrestling mat who did not lift weights, and could not demonstrate a heavy deadlift, bench press, nor kettlebell press, despite being frightfully strong. Weightlifting is a skill -- a strength skill -- and must be practiced, but those skills do not necessarily transfer to other activities, and those who cannot demonstrate such skills, doesn't mean they are weak.

--https://maxwellsc.com/blog.cfm?blogID=200

 

Any beginner can make great gains no matter what he does. What matters is form (which the OP probably won't have), the technique, and intensity of effort. Bodyweight training can made extremely intense, BTW.

 

Is Bodyweight Training Easy? How To Make It Harder!

 

As can the old MuscleMag training with barbells, thereby enabling lighter weights and cutting out 2/3 of all the sets thought absolutely necessary. Where's the fun in that, though? ????

 

Eventually, probably in no longer than 5 years of consistent training, the progress will stop for our fitness warriiors except for improvements in form--which may enable the lifting of heavier weights and increasing chances of injury.

 

Maintaining functional strength, flexibility, and mobility becomes the important challenge after about age 50 (assuming you're not starting or restarting) IF you're not already too injured from sets & reps with heavy weights (young men all dream of being Arnold; some never give it up until by necessity); burned out; or mentally too weak to fight against approaching morbidity. So we don't see many guys in their 50s, 60s, and 70s lifting in the gyms.

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by BigStar

[robblok]

Just now, BigStar said:

Oh, bodyweight can be "nice" after a few months, too.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=bodyweight+training+transformation&pws=0&gl=us&tbm=isch

 

In fact merely lifting weights can be a limiting factor--for doing calisthenics. Different goals. I suspect anyone reading this thread, except for yourself, would be quite happy to achieve and maintain forever the level of fitness shown in many of the above examples. ????

 

Functional strength with health (avoiding injury and repetitive motion stress) is probably the more realistic goal than becoming Arnold, esp for the long haul. How's your most recent injury, the shoulder, doing, BTW?

 

--https://maxwellsc.com/blog.cfm?blogID=200

 

Any beginner can make great gains no matter what he does. What matters is form (which the OP probably won't have), the technique, and intensity of effort. Bodyweight training can made extremely intense, BTW.

 

Is Bodyweight Training Easy? How To Make It Harder!

 

As can the old MuscleMag training with barbells, thereby enabling lighter weights and cutting out 2/3 of all the sets thought absolutely necessary. Where's the fun in that, though? ????

 

Eventually, probably in no longer than 5 years of consistent training, the progress will stop for our fitness warriiors except for improvements in form--which may enable the lifting of heavier weights and increasing chances of injury.

 

Maintaining strength, flexibility, and mobility becomes the important challenge after about age 50 (assuming you're not starting or restarting) IF you're not already too injured from sets & reps with heavy weights (young men all dream of being Arnold; some never give it up until by necessity); burned out; or mentally too weak to fight against approaching morbidity. So we don't see many guys in their 50s, 60s, and 70s lifting in the gyms.

 

I would not merely lift weights i would add cardio too. But that is just me. I am just saying and I am right in this and your wrong that its easier to use weights then to use bodyweight. Its easier to progress and make things heavier and to keep track. That is a lot harder with bodyweight.

 

Deadlifts give a lot of functional strength so do squats not sure why bodyweight would be better at this.

 

I think you got a bit of a wrong idea about me are you insecure of something. I don't chase weights or anything its just an easy way to keep track of things and to increase load. I am not even close to Swarzenegger. Again a stupid assumption on your side (just like you think keto is the only way). I lift weights because i like it its easy and I don't mind doing less sets more sets or whatever. Its about how i feel during and after a workout. If that means light weights so be it if it means heavy (within limits i dont do low reps anymore) then so be it. 

 

Whatever works at a point works, I used to do elaborate splits now I just do full body.  I change it up a bit. The idea is not gaining muscle (big enough) but to do something i like and what works. 

 

Looks a lot like you are an old man and sour that you can't lift anymore and project that on everyone. Not really big of you is it.

 

I have no dreams of looking like Swarzenegger also no injuries (had a one serious one but gone the shoulder).  I don't care about the weights i lift but the effort i put in. Like you said after 5 years you reach your top and its done. I reached my limits long ago. I will never surpass that. Would be foolish to even try. You seem to have a problem with people who like to gain a bit of muscle.

 

Actually i know quite a few guys of ther 50 and 60ies in gyms but yes the majority is younger. But to be honest you don't see many older guys in any sports. Because older guys give up and become fat or immobile. Most prefer to be sitting in a bar drinking beer. I think its good if people workout (whatever bodyweight mountain biking jogging whatever they like) its about doing something. If you find something you like do it. Just don't be like you and project your best things on others. What someone likes is personal, just like diets.

 

My stance has always been train what you like be it with weights or bodyweight. Personally i think bodyweight is inferior because of loading options and muscle building properties. You rant on about wanting to be Swarzenegger but you don't need to be Swarzenegger to use the most optimum way to build muscle. That is with weights. Unless you can prove its not that stands.

 

I have never seen a top bodybuilder do it with bodyweights. So the fastest way to get muscle is with weights. No way around it. Its superior. So with bodyweight it might take years to reach a certain stage and with weights it might take half that time. Both end results could be the same and not even close to Swarzenegger. A beach body is far more realistic.

 

My most recent and only injury my shoulder is good. No problems anymore. I am amazed at how well i recovered. I can do all the stuff i could before. So are you saying you never had any injuries. That shoulder is my only serious injury. So how many have you had ?

 

Your talking about staying mobile that is indeed one of the most important things. You do know that lifting weights helps with bone density ? Though bodyweight probably does the same if loaded right. Lifting weights does not have to be heavy in weights but in effort. So you can also do a 10 second rep or stuff like that. 

 

The more i think about it the more you sound like one of those guys that just could not build any muscle and now hates people who like working out. Maybe you should lighten up a bit and accept that the most important thing is to exercise and keep exercising. That means doing something you like. For me that is lifting. For you its bodyweight, for an other its mountain biking. All exercise has its pro's and cons but it is still better then not doing anything at all. 

 

[robblok]

Just curious why you would use bodyweight to get to a certain physique (if that is the goal) instead of weights. Weights will get you there faster. No doubt about it. So if the goal is a certain look weights will get you there faster.

 

Sure the pics of those guys are nice but you get there faster with weights and progressive overload then bodyweight exercises. So if that is the goal then use weights. If its about the journey then you can use bodyweight. I mean there are people who walk from one country to an other while others use the plane. They just like the journey.

 

Most people here want some muscle and want it fast (not many people have patience). Nobody wants to look like Swarzenegger and realistically nobody will ever get there. Lifting weights does not mean you will look like him. Only uneducated people think that. Because you need good genetics, anabolics and a lot of dedication. Most don't have that. But to get in shape fast weights are great especially if combined with cardio. It will get you there faster as with bodyweight.

 

Advantage of bodyweight is that it cost less and you can do it anywhere and some people will like it more then doing weights. That is good as its about keeping up something. So if you hate doing weights don't do them find something that you like. If that is bodyweight great. 

 

You used the pics as a goal, so now look at the other goal mobility. Like you mentioned before who says you need to do weights heavy. I used to do 5 x 5 but i found the reps too low. I like 8-10 more can go higher if i want or if i feel like it. But im used to 8-10 and it works. 

 

Can you give some studies that show that bodyweight exercises cause less strain then weight lifting at 8-10 range ? I mean to get tired you would have to do far more reps with bodyweight then with weights. So more repetitive stress but at a lower level. With weights more stress but lower reps. So how does that compare ? You have said it a few times but I havent seen any proof actually. 

 

 

[robblok]

Just a little more to debunk Bigstar his claims that weight training is bad for joints. This research actually show that weight training is good for people with joint problems 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11469475/

 

Also his injury thing for weightlifting seems to be a bit of maybe personal bias.

 

Less Injury Among Weightlifters Compared to Other Sports

Injury incidence was fairly consistent across the different sports; 1-2 injuries per lifter /year or 2-4 injuries per 1000h. However, three of the bodybuilding-studies reported lower rates; 0.12-0.7 injury per lifter per year and 0.24-1 injury per 1000h.

Important to note is that injury incidence rate in weightlifting sports is low compared to other common sports such as soccer (7.6 injuries/1000h training) and ice hockey (6.48/1000h training).

 

 

https://www.ebtofficial.com/paininjury/injured-lifting-weights/

 

These numbers seem to be consistent with me.. only 1 injury over my life as weightlifter.

 

Also I don't really get his other claims why would strain put onto a muscle or joint by bodyweight be any different then that brought on by a weight. If you do bodyweight dips for triceps you probably put a lot more strain on your triceps then if you were to do a tricpes pull down or a one arm triceps extension with a dumbbell. 

 

Maybe Bigstar should be a little less bias same as he claims that Keto is the best for everyone (totally untrue). Seems that he sees his personal training as the best and project that on others.

 

I only claim that weightlifting will give you more results and faster then bodyweight exercises. If that was not the case the professionals bodybuilders would all use bodyweight exercises. Also training as a bodybuilder will not trun you into a bodybuilder overnight (else everyone would have a huge physique). It will bring you to the same level as those bodyweight trainers just faster.

 

Also loading with weights is easier and more precise so more efficient.

 

Does that mean bodyweight is useless, no it is not its good too cheaper too. But some of the exercises are quite dangerous balance wise. 

 

I always stated that it does not really matter what kind of exercise you do as long as you like it. As consistency is best and why do something you hate. I certainly would not be lifting weights if i hated it but plenty of people don't like it. Then find something you like and do that. Everything beats doing nothing. 

 

Just like diets (where bigstar says only keto works) exercise is also really individual and one should always go for something that you like.

 

However this topic was about working out with weights hence my replies about how to workout with weights. 

[pgrahmm]

 Menu

 

Learning From Superhumans: The Incredible Fitness and Success of Jack LaLanne

written by JAMES CLEAR

HEALTHY EATING MOTIVATION STRENGTH TRAINING

Jack LaLanne was a pioneer in the world of fitness.

The gyms that you see all over town? He opened one of the nation’s first fitness gyms in 1936.

The machines that fill those gyms? He invented dozens of them.

All of those home workout videos and television weight loss shows? He was the man who first brought fitness into your living room. The Jack LaLanne Show was the longest–running television exercise program of all time. It was on television for 34 years.

And that’s just his business career.

If you really want to be impressed, take a look at a handful of his personal fitness achievements.

Here are a few of the fitness feats that LaLanne accomplished…

• He swam from Alcatraz to Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco while wearing handcuffs.
• At age 42, he set the world record for pushups by doing over 1,000 in 23 minutes.
• At age 45, he did 1,000 jumping jacks and 1,000 pullups in 1 hour and 22 minutes.
• At age 60, he swam from Alcatraz to Fisherman’s Wharf for the second time. This time he not only wore handcuffs, but also towed a 1,000 pound boat.

LaLanne was in such remarkable shape that he could do one—armed fingertip pushups while in a completely stretched out position.

Ready for something really incredible?

To celebrate his 70th birthday, LaLanne swam 1.5 miles along the California coast from the Queen’s Way Bridge to Long Beach Harbor. And he did it while wearing handcuffs and shackles on his arms and legs and towing 70 row boats holding 70 people.

It sounds impossible, but the 70–year–old LaLanne finished the swim with all of the boats dragging along behind him.

What Made Jack LaLanne Different?

In some ways, LaLanne’s accomplishments are so out of the ordinary that it’s hard to translate them into our own lives. (I mean, I love doing fitness challenges, but I’m not planning to tow 70 boats anytime soon.)

Thankfully, there is a lesson you can learn from Jack LaLanne that applies to nearly everything in your life. You won’t discover it by looking at his accomplishments, but rather, by examining his daily habits.

The Daily Routine of Jack LaLanne

The only way you can hurt the body is not use it.
—Jack LaLanne

LaLanne was a big believer in rituals and routines. He realized the power that consistent daily actions could have on his life.

Here are a few of the habits that Jack LaLanne did every day for decades…

• Lift weights and do strength training for 90 minutes.
• Swim or run for 30 minutes (in addition to his strength training).
• Eat 10 raw vegetables.
• Eat two meals: a late breakfast and an early dinner (hmm… that sounds familiar).
• Wake up at 4am (in his later years, LaLanne “slept in” until 5am).

Look at that list. It’s not overly long, but imagine doing those things not just for one day or one week, but for 60 years like Jack LaLanne did.

Even at age 94, LaLanne was still exercising for two hours every day. 90 minutes of strength training. 30 minutes of swimming or walking. 10 raw vegetables. Every. Single. Day. For 60 years.

When we see someone who accomplishes something incredible, the easy way out is to discount it, chalk it up to natural talent or genetics, and claim that they were born with something you could never have. It takes the responsibility off of you. But the truth is that most incredible people — even the ones who accomplish superhuman feats — are simply more consistent than everyone else.

It was his incredible consistency that made Jack LaLanne superhuman.

When you look at Jack LaLanne’s life, it’s easy to focus on the big accomplishments and overlook the daily habits. Similarly, in your own life it’s easy to spend all of your time focused on transformations, big goals, and rapid changes, and forget that it’s the daily habits that lead to long–term success.

Success is any field is about lifestyle choices, not life–changing transformations. It’s your daily routine that will carry you to wherever it is you want to go.

If Something is Important to You, Schedule It

How did Jack LaLanne stick to his daily habits with such consistency?

Do you think he just waited until he felt motivated to workout each day? No way. His consistency has very little to do with willpower or motivation. Nobody is motivated every day for 60 years.

LaLanne knew what was important to him and so he scheduled it into his life. He started every day with strength training. Then he did his swimming and walking. Then he has his breakfast. Same order. Same time. Every time.

If you look at LaLanne’s daily habits, everything had a time and place when it was going to happen. Can you say the same about your goals?

So often we tell ourselves things like, “I’m going to eat healthier” or “I’m going to workout more” or “I’m going to start writing more” … but we never say when and where these things are actually going to happen.

Carve out some time. Pick a date. Choose a place. Give your actions a time and a space to live.

LaLanne didn’t rely on his willpower or motivation. He just stuck to his daily schedule. That’s how all professionals approach their work.

Lessons from LaLanne: Keeping Life In Perspective

In his later years, Jack LaLanne was fond of saying, “I can’t afford to die. It would ruin my image.”

Eventually, he passed away at 96 years old. And in all of those years, I think one of his greatest accomplishments was holding on to his happiness as much as his health. Even with all of his fitness achievements, LaLanne didn’t ruin the rest of his life in pursuit of a particular goal.

The balance between achievement and happiness is something that I think about often – not just in my own life, but also in what I write on this site. I’m still working on it, but I believe that you don’t have to be dissatisfied to be driven. There’s no reason you can’t love the life you have and want to make it better at the same time.

But it’s not easy. Happiness and gratefulness require constant tending, much like diet and exercise. Your happiness and your health form the basic foundation of your life. There’s nothing new or complex about this — despite what the newest commercials for health products, new drugs, and fitness programs want you to believe.

This balance between happiness and achievement is something that I’m working on getting better at myself. What Jack LaLanne showed us — not just in his words, but also through how he lived — is that you can do incredible things and have a wonderful time while doing it.

Learning From Jack LaLanne

Jack LaLanne lived an incredible life, and he mastered something that we can all benefit from: the daily routine.

Is there a skill that is more valuable than the ability to consistently work towards goals that are important to you while maintaining a sense of perspective and happiness?

It’s not the incredible achievements, but rather your daily habits that determine who you are and what you accomplish. Get your habits handled, and the rest will fall into place. If we can take this small lesson and apply it to our lives, there is no doubt we will all be better off for it.

 

 

 

 

[BigStar]

14 hours ago, pgrahmm said:

Jack LaLanne was a pioneer in the world of fitness.

Nice article, thanks. I've always been an admirer of JL, have his book in fact. My momma bought his first big product, the Glamour Stretcher, innovative precursor of modern resistance bands.

 

Your post will probably be removed for excessive quoting and lacking a direct link (that I noticed on first reading, anyway) , so I'll give the link here:

 

Learning From Superhumans: The Incredible Fitness and Success of Jack LaLanne

 

Excellent points about lifestyle and consistency for success. I fear that most of his Glamour Stretchers, like Mom's, ended up as toys for the kids. Whether OP's shiny new equipment ends up as clothes hangers as one poster suggested remains to be seen.

 

I'll add that I wouldn't advise mere mortals to follow JL's exercise routine. Genetic gifts tend to follow a bell curve: he was obviously at the top end.

 

JL's low carb diet and food selection also had much to do with his long life of good health all the way to the end. The article didn't mention his famous dictums:

 

7. Make sure it tastes bad. LaLanne passed on processed foods. "If man makes it," he liked to say, "don't eat it." But even more draconian was his stance on flavor: “If it tastes good,” he ordered, “spit it out.”

 

     --https://www.thedailybeast.com/jack-lalanne-fitness-guru-dies-at-96-learn-10-of-his-habits

 

Much remains under our own control as individuals. We CAN still achieve relative fitness and modify our diets for improved strength, mobility, flexibility, and health--and so, a compression of morbidity w/o the genes of a superstar.

 

 

 

[robblok]

On 5/11/2021 at 11:50 AM, BigStar said:

Nice article, thanks. I've always been an admirer of JL, have his book in fact. My momma bought his first big product, the Glamour Stretcher, innovative precursor of modern resistance bands.

 

Your post will probably be removed for excessive quoting and lacking a direct link (that I noticed on first reading, anyway) , so I'll give the link here:

 

Learning From Superhumans: The Incredible Fitness and Success of Jack LaLanne

 

Excellent points about lifestyle and consistency for success. I fear that most of his Glamour Stretchers, like Mom's, ended up as toys for the kids. Whether OP's shiny new equipment ends up as clothes hangers as one poster suggested remains to be seen.

 

I'll add that I wouldn't advise mere mortals to follow JL's exercise routine. Genetic gifts tend to follow a bell curve: he was obviously at the top end.

 

JL's low carb diet and food selection also had much to do with his long life of good health all the way to the end. The article didn't mention his famous dictums:

 

7. Make sure it tastes bad. LaLanne passed on processed foods. "If man makes it," he liked to say, "don't eat it." But even more draconian was his stance on flavor: “If it tastes good,” he ordered, “spit it out.”

 

     --https://www.thedailybeast.com/jack-lalanne-fitness-guru-dies-at-96-learn-10-of-his-habits

 

Much remains under our own control as individuals. We CAN still achieve relative fitness and modify our diets for improved strength, mobility, flexibility, and health--and so, a compression of morbidity w/o the genes of a superstar.

 

 

 

your right that for most people a home gym and equipment is not working. Though things have changed a bit because of covid. But for most its not a good investment. 

 

Also right about genetics, should not compare yourself to the top people only brings you down.

 

Now training with some 2 young guys early 30ies in my home gym. One is strong at deadlifts and squat the other stronger at bench and military press. The guy who is not as good at bench press is really annoyed that he can't keep up. I just tell him we are all different and all different proportion limbs and strength and weakness. What is good for one is not always good for an other. 

 

Its nice training with newbies, so much progress to be made in a fast time if they do the right program. Incremental lifts really improve the bodies of those guys. Amazing. Wish i started off like that when i was young.

 

Full body is amazing really good way to get back into it or just to train as a beginner or even advanced. 

 

There is a LOT under our own control, within your own limits everyone can make great changes in body composition and health. Main thing is a good diet combined with good exercise. If you got both under control its amazing how things can change. One of the guys is losing weight fast getting stronger. trap bar Deadlifs up like from 50kg to 90kg (sets) in 4 weeks. 

 

Untrained out of shape people can make the best gains, people like you and me are not going to make much changes. But its the same for every sport, joggers wont keep getting faster nor cyclists runners whatever. At some point it stops for everyone. Most changes happen in the begin, with some proper program and right food.

 

 

 

[BigStar]

On 5/9/2021 at 6:25 PM, robblok said:

I would not merely lift weights i would add cardio too. But that is just me.

You probably should, but steady state cardio is negatively correlated with "gainz." I do 2 short intense strength training sessions per week with 1 30 min session of intervals, and get a "Superior" VO2max. Outside the lab, so unquestionably inaccurate, but good 'nuff for time & effort spent at my age.

 

 

I am just saying and I am right in this and your wrong that its easier to use weights then to use bodyweight. Its easier to progress and make things heavier and to keep track. That is a lot harder with bodyweight.

 

Funny straw man argument. First, to congratulate yourself on being right about some point I didn’t make or even imply; and then, even funnier, offer a wrong argument against yourself as well, creating a tautology with assumed meanings of “easier” and “progress.”???? In my post, I clearly mentioned different goals. They don't use the same exercises. Nor need the goal always require making things heavier, so progress may not be measured in terms of weight moved at all. Since you're not familiar with bodyweight training, you don't know how to make "things" more difficult, if desired, and don't don't have a clue how progress is tracked.

 

Time under load is key for the sake of efficiency and more. Later I'll give some examples you may try for yourself. So try to let that sink in. Progress can be easier OR harder depending on one's level and attempted exercise in either weight training OR bodyweight training.

 

One of the common myths of bro science is that bodyweight training isn't effective, so it's not surprising to find it here. 9 Broscience Myths Destroyed With Actual Science

 

Again: bodyweight exercise can in fact be “nice” after more than a few months, too. It needn’t be a limiting factor then at all but rather an enhancer, depending on one’s goals.

It was a very simple, valid point, and actually quite a common recommendation for beginners--but somehow you found it just awfully worrisome, as if your bench presses were being threatened.????

 

Deadlifts give a lot of functional strength so do squats not sure why bodyweight would be better at this.

 

That's explained for you in the articles below. The second happens to mention a comparison between barbell squats and pistol squats.

 

Problem for this discussion is that you don’t seem to have much of an understanding of calisthenics, functional fitness, or even of what fitness is, exactly. I'll define fitness later for you. To be fit, you don't need to be a bodybuilder, or train like a bodybuilder, or desire to look like a bodybuilder. 

 

To stop wasting our time, go study up on calisthenics and at least find out why calisthenics does in fact offer more functional strength than bodybuilding (it always comes back to that in your examples) and why people may prefer it even after the first few months of “nice.” 

 

10 Benefits of Calisthenics Training | Calisthenics vs Weights

The Top 3 Reasons I Switched To Calisthenics After Years Of Lifting Weights
 

 
just like you think keto is the only way

Nope, you made that up, too. Never said or implied any such thing. Evidently you’re still worried somebody’s gon’ take your morning muesli away from you. Chill, man.

 

I lift weights because i like it its easy and I don't mind doing less sets more sets or whatever. Its about how i feel during and after a workout.

Good for you. In contrast, most people don’t much like any sort of strength training and find it boring. I always have, through the decades. So will, I suspect, any overweight, out-of-shape beer guzzler coming here to ask for help. Or, they may just be too busy otherwise to spend time doing "more"--and for what? It’s probably a good idea to help beginners, at the least, to exercise efficiently and safely and also not waste their money.

 

THAT was @sungod's useful point I agreed with: first, start with bodyweight (or perhaps, I would add, cheap strength training equipment like a set of bands and/or suspension trainer) and see if you’re serious about putting in any real effort. If you are, you still have a choice of continuing without a "gym" or go full monty.

Looks a lot like you are an old man and sour that you can't lift anymore and project that on everyone. Not really big of you is it.

Laughable. No, lacking an argument, and after having wasted time needlessly defending yourself (“the lady doth protest too much”), you’ve merely resorted to projecting a projection.???? Try to live up to your claim you put forth at the end of your last post of addressing the topic.
 
You seem to have a problem with people who like to gain a bit of muscle.

No, you seem to have a problem with reading, as you completely missed the point. It’s only responsible to consider how, exactly, old guys such as we have here (usually) can gain a bit of muscle--efficiently and safely, though the same methods can be used by everyone. “Get fit” with a bit of muscle doesn’t necessarily imply “get big.” You see, one can gain a bit of muscle and much more by bodyweight training if he so chooses.
 
Actually i know quite a few guys of ther 50 and 60ies in gyms but yes the majority is younger. But to be honest you don't see many older guys in any sports. Because older guys give up and become fat or immobile. Most prefer to be sitting in a bar drinking beer.

You’ve agreed with my point, adding nothing, but then ignored the underlying causes of and possible solutions for the dropoff. Sustainable solutions, that is. Carb addiction is probably a large part of the problem, for example.

I’m remembering all the jocks I knew in my youth, the godlike letter athletes who brought home the trophies. They trained conventionally. Now they’re either dead or in failing health. All that muscle turned to fat and then,  sooner rather than later, dust. My point: sustainable fitness is almost as important a goal as that of sustainable diet. And what form would that take for greatest likelihood of success, for the average person, all the way up to, say, age 95? Compression of morbidity has been on my mind lately since a discussion a month or so ago.

I think its good if people workout (whatever bodyweight mountain biking jogging whatever they like) its about doing something.

And it’s good that you’ve slipped in the indirect concession that bodyweight can be nice after a few months. ????

What someone likes is personal, just like diets.

Just like drug addiction. Yet purpose and knowledge are better than pointlessness and ignorance. Actually, I wish someone had told me back in the day what I know now. But, that was hardly possible. Charles Atlas was about the closest suitable role model at the time and his course cost too d.a.mn much.

 

My stance has always been train what you like be it with weights or bodyweight.

OH. Is THAT your stance. Bodyweight possible for some beyond a few months then? ????

 

Personally i think bodyweight is inferior because of loading options and muscle building properties.

But that’s just you according to your goal, which now seems to be "fun." Lifting weights is inferior for achieving the purposes of bodyweight training, so /r/bodyweightfitness has 2 million members and at least 2,000 people usually reading it at a time. Bodyweight trainers sometimes use weights or bands, however, for increased resistance for certain exercises.

 . . . You don't need to be Swarzenegger to use the most optimum way to build muscle. That is with weights. Unless you can prove its not that stands.

Russell’s teapot fallacy--amusing but ineffective and delusory. "Optimum” is a matter of interpretation that partly depends on goals and circumstances; and the “purpose” of the muscle, and 'safety,' are begged questions. Finally (SHOCK), strength training per se doesn’t depend on “weights” exclusively. See one comparison here.

 

I have never seen a top bodybuilder do it with bodyweights.

False equivalence. I’ve never seen a "top bodybuilder" do it with or without weights:

 

Come to think of it, can a bodybuilder do anything other than work out and pose? Powerlifters don't think so.

Despite poo-pooing the idea of Arnold, you always come back to bodybuilding.???? But you typically argue thus. I recall one of your refutations that “Olympians” don’t do something. Here on the forum, nobody’s looking to become a top bodybuilder (“top”—kills me), powerlifter, or Olympiad. Old fat out-of-shape guys aren’t interested in achieving “explosive power.” ???? Power to get up off the couch, yes.

 

Quote

In essence, the training methods which are successful with only about 5% of all persons who ever lift a barbell are advocated for the other 95% of the people who do not have the inherent potential to gain muscular mass on such an ill-conceived, illogical training protocol.

 In  short,  the  average  genetically-typical  trainee  is  destined  to  fail  because  the  training  protocols  endorsed  in  the muscle  magazines  are  simply  inappropriate  for  all  except  the  select  few  who  could  literally  make  gains  on  any routine.  Perhaps Stuart McRobert said it best in his book entitled Brawn, “The imitating of inappropriate models has been responsible for so much of the futile training methods that are so prevalent in gyms worldwide (p. 6).”   Wasted time, wasted effort, and more often than not the abandonment of an activity that, if approached rationally, could have provided a lifetime of enjoyment, enhanced fitness, and robust health. 

     --Kevin R. Fontaine, "Contemporary Anaerobic Exercise: A Shot In The Dark"

 

So the fastest way to get muscle is with weights.

Which muscle? Is there more than one or two? ???? What kind of weight is needed for bodyweight exercise? Could that be merely bodyweight? Is "get muscle" and "speed of getting muscle" always the main concern for exercise and fitness, or can it in fact irrelevant?

 

BIG news: training can be about SO much more than just “getting muscle fast.”???? Teenage boys read all those MuscleMags and never quite get over that idea, I suppose. Fact, the sooner the average guy forgets about bodybuilding and following that bro' science, the sooner he can focus on more useful, sustainable, and safer fitness goals. OH--unless they don't want to. You see, we're in agreement on the matter of freedom to choose.???? But if you're not knowledgeable, you're not exactly free, are you?

 

 So with bodyweight it might take years to reach a certain stage

Or with just lifting weights, one may never be able to reach a certain stage of skill acquired through bodyweight training or even of lifting weights intelligently and efficiently. The injury stage may not take years to arrive, however. ????

 and with weights it might take half that time.

And with more functional, less antiquated methods of resistance training, one fourth of that half of that time.

So are you saying you never had any injuries. That shoulder is my only serious injury. So how many have you had ?

Read what I said. I’m saying the average person applying the received MuscleMag training techniques of countless sets and reps with heavy weights will almost inevitably get injured one way or the other. Old guys such as we have here can afford injuries less easily than the kids, yet they’re more likely to get them. Fact: those older than 45 have documented higher rates of injury in the gym than those of their younger counterparts.

Of course I know whereof I speak (as always), been there, done it years ago, probably while you were still fat and acquiring your prediabetes. That’s part of the reason I now stay fit with minimal wear and tear on the joints, tendons, and ligaments. The needed TUL and intensity for functional strength are achieved much more safely and much faster without heavy weights and with few sets & reps. Leaves plenty of time to work on flexibility and mobility, too.

 

So for example take P. D. Mangan, 66 years old. I've been reading his Twitter feed lately. Works out twice a week at 30 min a pop, and he is after a recent 26 minutes:
 

P. D. Mangan after one of his twice-weekly 30 min workouts

Just an average, geek microbiologist reinvented as a fitness trainer and popularizer of low carb and HIT. Yeah, I'd consider that quite good ‘nuff, as would, I suspect, the vast majority of wannabe bodybuilders here.

 

Parenthetically, before the current lockdown, I had to leave Sin City for a few days on a mission to Bangkok and incidentally walked around a bit and hit a number of expat hangouts. I was impressed at how fat and out-of-shape all the older farang I happened to see were. Not a one was physically fit. Usually some fit guys around during normal times anyway.

 

“You could get lean and fit by diligently counting calories
And working out 6-7 days a week
But why would you do that?”

--P. D. Mangan

Indeed. Sun, steak, and steel, baby. To which my Thai gf adds, and sex. So cute.????

So less can be more. As this article notes,

 

Quote

In fact, the preponderance of resistance-training studies suggest that simple, low-volume, time-efficient, resistance training is just as effective for increasing muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance - regardless of training experience - as are the complex, high-volume, time-consuming protocols that are recommended in the Position Stand.[by the American College of Sports Medicine]

WOT? Could there be some valid science here? I think so, but I don’t really care, you see. What I know is that it’s been working well for me.

 

Wazzat mean, working well? Glad you asked; it's in reach of most anyone. Lean & fit with short intense workouts twice a week, balanced strength, confident movement, no counting weight or reps, plenty of rest w/ time for mobility training, no downtime, no real goals beyond maintaining the goodness (Why We Don’t Need Goals), no warmups, no worries about “gainz,” trivial investment; and, what with low carb as well, no counting calories, no hunger, no weight yo-yos--and, most importantly, good numbers across the board year after year. No meds, man. What’s not to like? I should go back to bro science and worry about how much I can bench press?

 

 

LOL. I think I'll just keep doing it.???? Healthspan and lifespan:

 

Quote

The rate of aging is obviously malleable, and those who think otherwise have little understanding of biology. Aging-related diseases are the biggest causes of death and suffering.

     --https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704919852918

 

OK, back to the grindstone:

The more i think about it the more you sound like one of those guys that just could not build any muscle and now hates people who like working out.

Nothing implied that, so merely your own wishful self-serving fantasy to explain the new and unfathomable. I myself do a couple of intense splits a week, thank you, with weights and machines IF I'm in a gym. And I always very much encourage people to diet & exercise. Seriously; it’s lonely shuffling among all those beer bellies in the Immigration line. (I seem never to have the good fortune to run into @tropo.???? I'm sure we'd have an interesting conversation.)

But I’d say, to help your case, given your obsession with “bodybuilding” exercise for posing purposes fun, then you could at least heed the advice of a thinking man’s pro bodybuilder, Mike Mentzer . So then, if the "fun" wears off, you might stop wasting so much time with that mindless pumping (making it easier with momentum) whose negative effects will likely someday be evident. Lighter weight, fewer sets, fewer reps, once or twice a week (split); fast, intense, and utterly excruciating.???? Leave yourself much more time to post ramblings on TVF.

Yeah, go read the book, find out what to do. Learn the basic principle and how to apply it: The science of productive bodybuilding exercise starts with a study and understanding of the nature of full, or high-intensity, muscular contractions (the principle of identity).

 

Key word: productive.

 

High-Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way

 

Quote

All of Mentzer’s training explorations were designed to help you put on as much muscle as your genetic potential would allow in the fastest time while doing the least amount of exercise possible.

“Least amount”—Ooh! I love that. Fact is, I’ve just always had something else better to do with my time than spend it exercising. (Do I sense nods of agreement?) I've always regarded it as a sort of business aspect of a lifestyle. A necessary part: I'm ever aware of what the consequences of not exercising would be. I prefer to postpone having to deal with them. Many people don't, obviously.
 

Your muesli’s safe with Mike, too. He favored carbs.

 

As alternatives, read Dorian Yares' Blood and Guts or learn from Clarence Bass, another model to save you time, effort, and joint mileage. Clarence has had quite a good run with HIT over a very long period of time. 1 set per exercise per week is all. ???? True, he's also done an awful lot of aerobics, I suspect inefficiently, in contrast to his lifting, but obviously doable. 

 

For you its bodyweight, for an other its mountain biking. All exercise has its pro's and cons but it is still better then not doing anything at all.

Better, but best for overall fitness is in fact a full range of strength, flexibility, and mobility training, if one can do so safely. I'll teach about mobility training in the next post. It's not doing more reps.????

 

No, I never said “it’s bodyweight” exclusively or even mainly. Again, I merely refuted one of your nonsensical points about bodyweight you made initially. More broadly, you confound the principle of strength training with the methods of its application in pursuit of different goals. Whether I use bodyweight, bands, a suspension trainer, free weights, machines, a furniture moving strap, or a mix--as I may at any given time--the principle never changes.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by BigStar

[BigStar]

On 5/9/2021 at 6:44 PM, robblok said:

Just curious why you would use bodyweight to get to a certain physique (if that is the goal) instead of weights. Weights will get you there faster. No doubt about it. So if the goal is a certain look weights will get you there faster.

Back to Arnold. I don’t have the goal to attain “a certain physique” or "look" but, more intelligently and usefully, to maintain fitness with health for the least amount of time and effort spent.

 

To achieve that goal, I may use bodyweight, bands, weights, machines, a furniture moving strap, or all of them. Besides work on functional strength I’ll include flexibility and mobility. Note health. My main concern, as reflected in the object of your rants, my OP, is healthspan.

 

Hence low carb dieting as well to avoid insulin spikes; the occasional fast; and miscellaneous this & that.

 

The popular mind assumes a close correlation between health and fitness: you're fit, you're automatically healthy. But no. Turns out the quest for fitness and performance may not improve one's health much but may even undermine it. WOT? Suck it up. So I try to adjust the two modalities--fitness and health--track together as mush as I can, to keep the anabolic and catabolic in balance.

Now, to address your most important concern: the critical pose value. After achieving fitness, assuming a healthy diet, one looks like this: fit. Looking fit mean "looking fit," or "in shape," with what’s called “good body composition,” not looking like a bodybuilder. Why? Because one isn’t doing bodybuilding training to look like a bodybuilder. Why not? Because the goal is to achieve sustainable fitness with health for the least amount of time and effort spent. WOT? So what’s the purpose of that fitness then? Well, nobody ever lists better posing or even "muscle mass" as a target benefit, sorry. Here it is. First, there's Top 10 Benefits of Physical Activity. Exercise is that physical activity designed to enhance fitness in the 5 standard areas of

• body composition,
• cardiorespiratory endurance,
• flexibility,
• muscular endurance, and
• muscular strength.

Aha! By how much then? Enough so that you can handle confidently the challenges you may expect to encounter above your own resting threshold.

 

Clear now? One can get fit (see definition; memorize) by exercising in any number of ways. Bodyweight is one of them, and so it can still be "nice" after a few months or years or decades.

 

Why the emphasis on "physique?" Probably because bro science, or meathead logic, holds that the more you look like a bodybuilder, the more you'll attract women. Charles Atlas used that pitch immediately. But is that really true? Whoops. Not really.

 

Quote

. . . women rated men with moderate muscularity rather than low or high muscularity as most attractive, perhaps because men with low muscularity are believed to possess too little dominance and men with high muscularity are believed to exhibit too much.

     --Why Is Muscularity Sexy? Tests of the Fitness Indicator Hypothesis  

 

That is, (cough) "toned," lean and fit.???? So that's actually good news for our members and within easy reach. Abs rate most immediatelhy attractive, but a sixpack is hardly necessary. A flat stomach will do; and if you're fit (assuming diet), you got it.

 

Funny some of the comments you'll see, like

"I can appreciate a toned down version of the look, but (from experience) I've got zero interest in a gym rat. I like people who have interesting lives, and spending a few hours a day in the gym concentrating on their own appearance often doesn't leave room for much else."

"I think what they don't like about big guys is the inevitable douch bag personality that accompanies all those muscles."

     --Girls, do you find ripped men attractive ?

 

'Course, it depends on the individual, but these ladies do have a point.

 

Now: can you get "there" (fit) faster using bodybuilding training? For the average person, no.

 

The reason is that

 

Quote

 

The more easily digestible explanation of this is that CKC exercises force your body to work as a whole unit, while OKC exercises target one or two specific muscles. Virtually all calisthenics exercises are CKC, which results in a more completely trained body with few, if any, muscle imbalances. You would almost have to go out of your way to create some. . . .

 

With weights, if you don’t have a well thought out training plan, it’s easy to succumb to ‘bro science’ and work only your beach muscles. Aside from avoiding muscle imbalances, the other aspect of complete training means being a well-rounded individual who not only has strong muscles, but also has good balance and mobility. That’s in addition to well-developed joints, tendons and ligaments, as well as good-to-excellent muscle endurance.

. . . in the inherent nature of calisthenics. You almost can’t progress further in your calisthenics journey unless you become more well-rounded in your training. Some moves will be impossible to unlock. This is in contrast to weightlifting where you can just keep piling on more weight — often foolishly — and cause yourself all sorts of health issues.

 

     --The Top 3 Reasons I Switched To Calisthenics After Years Of Lifting Weights
 

Reading the health forum daily, I see typical problems with backs, knees, and hips that could likely have been prevented if the poster had kept his muscles in continual balance and kept up his flexibility.

I suggest that for most members here it would also be ultimately self-defeating to read MuscleMag and aim for “a certain physique” as THE main goal. (Not that we don’t have an awful lot of insistence on self-defeating behavior around here irrespective of what anyone says.) However, ExRx publishes an excellent chart for various posing sequences here. Wanna go ahead and start practicing your posing now anyway, go right ahead. Never underestimate the power of the imagination.

If I use bodyweight for some exercises, it’s to achieve what bodyweight can do for me conveniently and safely at the time for one or more particular exercises. Same with all the others. Enough with all these simple-minded assumptions.
 
Sure the pics of those guys are nice but you get there faster with weights and progressive overload then bodyweight exercises.

No, you don’t get to have the advantages earned by calisthenics training (bodyweight exercise progressed)—which go far beyond mere pics--by working out with weights. Try to get over that fixation. You’ve confused goals again and consciously ignored the point.

 

You used the pics as a goal, so now look at the other goal mobility. . . . I like 8-10 more can go higher if i want or if i feel like it.

 

No, the pics weren't a goal and the point isn't (believe it not) to compare the physiques of bodybuilders with those of gymnasts. I said, "level of fitness." Fitness isn't "physique."

 

Those pics are of guys who became athletically muscular (quite sufficiently fit) in pursuit of a goal other than "a certain look" by means of bodyweight training. No, lifting weights will not bring you or anyone to that level of fitness because lifting weights will not teach the kinds of movements these guys have mastered. My point remains true that most anyone here would be happy to achieve that level of fitness remains true.

 

It appears you don't really know what mobility means, either, and think that lifting weights somehow provides it, pumping up and down. Lots of vids on youtube here.

 

Why don't you just, say, run through MOVE YOUR BODY // Primal Movement & Mobility Practice right quick, see how mobile you really are from your 8-10 reps of lifting something. Steve Maxwell has a good routine: Mobility Conditioning Circuit that should also help your understand the difference between fitness resulting from bodyweight training and just "building muscle"--and the superior implications of the former for aging well, since he's in his 60s. He's big on HIT, super slow, and TSC (Timed Static Contractions), by the way. You see how "making things heavier" doesn't seem to have been impeded his "progress."   

 

Can you give some studies that show that bodyweight exercises cause less strain then weight lifting at 8-10 range?

You’ve omitted the countless sets of lifting heavy weights the 8-10 range over a long period. Typical dodge used in countless such pro-weightlifting answers on the 'net. Not that I'm against weightlifting, mind you.

 

I mean to get tired you would have to do far more reps with bodyweight then with weights.

No. Yawn. Test this for yourself easily. See how many reps of this bodyweight exercise, a planche, in good form (note the form very carefully), performed slowly up and down (none o' that good ol’ pumpin' to use momentum, heh heh) you can do without getting tired:

 

Chris Heria

Pushups, so easy you say. Can't make them difficult. How many? Or how about your iron cross? Jeez, man. How about just a lil ol’ pistol squat? How many of those can you do in good form, holding each with a static contraction for 10 sec? We await your report.

 

So how does that compare ? You have said it a few times but I havent seen any proof actually.

 

The variables involved make a formal of apples-to-apples comparison quite difficult, though you seem usually content to compare apples with oranges. A particular bodyweight exercise may involve more OR fewer reps than a particular lift and a bodyweight exercise will often engage more, and different, muscles than a lift. But most agree on the point I made, and common sense will take you pretty far.

But of course bodyweight exercisers get injured as well and partly for the same reason: high numbers of sets & reps in the quest to overcome genetics. The young and naive come to bodyweight training also thinking mainly in terms of weight loss and "hypertrophy"on the cheap. Good news is that the average fitness warrior doesn't needs many such to attain functional fitness, safely, spending relatively little time working out. For example, for you oddball non-pro bodybuilders here, a full-body super slow bodyweight session in an hour:

 

With a $50 piece of kit. WOT??? Is he fit? Oh, I think quite sufficiently fit.???? Note that it’s fairly strenuous exercise even for this fit trainer taking needed breaks to instruct. Only 1 set per exercise. Note the far greater range of muscles exercised, the core engagement, the mobility enhancement.

 

The intensity can be increased even more by going even slower and to absolute failure--if you can do it in good form.  Redditor bodyweight fitness guru /u/MindfulMover works out only an hour week using the intensity gained from accomodating resistance. Moreover, as shown here, the intensity and the rapidity of moving from one set to another gives sufficient “cardio” to make all that extra steady state “cardio” superfluous. Same can be done with weights, bands, or machines. Despite all the brainwashing starting with Ken Cooper, steady-state, low-intensity activity isn’t the ONLY way to produce aerobic adaptations and benefits.

I’m too lazy to move quickly between sets, however, and I’m watching videos besides (unless at the gym, where I’m listening to my mp3 player), so I put in 30 min of intervals on the treadmill weekly. Intervals, to achieve, as always, max benefit/effort/time spent. Better to improve VO2peak, insulin resistance, resting heart rate, cardiovascular and metabolic health.  Slow steady state “cardio” is inefficient and, like superfluous reps, means needless repetitive stress wear & tear on the joints, tendons, and ligaments. Ironically it’s also negatively correlated with “gainz.”

 

Quote

Correlational analysis identified significant negative relationships between frequency (-0.26 to -0.35) and duration (-0.29 to -0.75) of endurance training for hypertrophy, strength, and power. Significant relationships (p < 0.05) between ES for decreased body fat and % maximal heart rate (r = -0.60) were also found. Our results indicate that interference effects of endurance training are a factor of the modality, frequency, and duration of the endurance training selected.

       --https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22002517/

As Steve Maxwell says,

Quote

A good workout -- a really good strength workout -- can be completed in between 20-30 minutes, even less if it's intense enough. I like to use a job analogy: all strength-training workouts take you to about the same place, more or less, in about five years, approximately the same muscularity, and body weight size and strength, but some guys are spending a couple hours at the gym everyday, versus other people spending as little as an hour at the gym every week.

     --Dear Over-45 Trainee

 

 

[BigStar]

On 5/10/2021 at 8:48 AM, robblok said:

Just a little more to debunk Bigstar his claims that weight training is bad for joints. This research actually show that weight training is good for people with joint problems 

No, debunking your own imaginary claim again. This is fun.???? I never said weight training per se is bad for joints or more generally, resistance exercise.

 

Would it, however, be desirable to minimize the stress of resistance training on joints, ligaments, and tendons, esp for a “crustie,” as our Brits would say? OH. Well, yeah, that’s extremely desirable. Conventional weight training, esp when done w/ poor form, with all those needless sets & reps against heavy weight, doesn’t do that very well--or not at all for most amateur pumpers, notably those noobs starting in home “gyms” with little real knowledge of correct form and how important it is. I see a lot of poor instruction given by Thai trainers in Thai gyms, too. It’d be worth it for a serious gymster to pay a good online pro to critique his form.

None other than Sylvester Stallone came to that inevitable conclusion. He no longer does weight training: too hard on joints, esp his joints after, he admits, what he put them through (with the guidance of the best professional trainers, too). Now he uses—get this—resistance bands.

 

Also his injury thing for weightlifting seems to be a bit of maybe personal bias.

 

No, see the Steve Maxwell quotation below.
 

Re:
Less Injury Among Weightlifters Compared to Other Sports

Learn to read critically. The flaw in this lies in the definition of “injury.” Typically that’s defined as "Any traumatic act against the body sufficiently serious to have required first aid, filing of school and/or insurance reports, or medical treatment." Moreover, the study examined pros Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting" "one of the best Swiss Professional Hockey Team" etc. not yer average amateurs just trying to build "a bit of muscle," in your words.

So, only a tiny fraction and inapplicable. Did you require first aid or medical treatment for your shoulder? Recorded as a weightlifting injury? Uh—no.???? Similar flaws exist in all the other studies you’ve cited recently, as explained here: Has the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of Obesity Failed?

Fact is, weight training is notorious for causing injuries and so the forums are perpetually filled with injury reports and quests for cures. Ironically a common injury is dropping a weight on your foot. You seem to have forgotten about your crushed and bloodied toe, whoops.
 

Quote

 

If you are training to be a weight lifter, powerlifter, strongman, or to perform various gymnastic stunts and feats, then, obviously, your training must be centered around these goals...but, I maintain that this form of training is not the best way to train yourself for other recreational activities and sports -- or for health and longevity.

 

So, one of the first questions I ask the people in my seminars is, "How many people have gotten injured in their strength training?"

 

It's not unusual for the majority of the audience to raise their hands. In my definition of exercise, strength training should prevent injuries, not create them.

 

     --Steve Maxwell, Dear Over-45 Trainee
 

These numbers seem to be consistent with me.. only 1 injury over my life as weightlifter.

 

Well, 2, actually, that we know about. Strive for greater consistency with yourself and more accuracy in reporting. It's common, however, to find quite another sort of testimonial, such as this one on reddit:

 

Quote

 

Im 43 and right there with you.

 

I started at 32 and Ive never looked better, but underneath Ive started to feel it recently. Lower back issues, knee pain, and issues with my shoulders and rotator cuffs.

 

 

Guess each person will have decide his own risk/reward ratio. I always ask our "it's all genes" advocates here how one is know whether he's got the good genes so that he doesn't need to bother to hedge any bets, before it's too late? Studies with twins show only about 20% inherited protection from otherwise detrimental environmental factors. I never get answer to that.

 

But joints do a lot better before you reach 45 anyway.

 

 

Why injuries occur less often with bodyweight training is explained here:

 

10 Benefits of Calisthenics Training | Calisthenics vs Weights

 

And the number and severity of joint problems accelerate with age. How rapidly partly depends, obviously, on how much wear & tear you've put on them with countless sets and reps of heavy weights over many years.

 

Maybe Bigstar should be a little less bias same as he claims that Keto is the best for everyone (totally untrue). Seems that he sees his personal training as the best and project that on others.

 

Rather--and no “maybe” here--you should merely read what I actually say rather than imagine I claim something or the other. And then, worse, fatuously imagine you’re refuted yourself when you’ve actually offered up a wrong argument with false assumptions against yourself. Though amusing, it's really just a waste of time.????

 

I only claim that weightlifting will give you more results and faster then bodyweight exercises.

 

We've already addressed the problems with that claim.

 

If that was not the case the professionals bodybuilders would all use bodyweight exercises.

 

Round and round and round. Bodyweight training gives different results than bodybuilding training to achieve different goals. Gymnasts use bodyweight training to become gymnasts. If professional bodybuilders wanted to be gymnasts, rather than just pose, then they would all use bodyweight exercises to become gymnasts just as gymnasts do. No bodybuilder has ever won a gymnastics competition through bodybuilder training. Conclusion: professional bodybuilders aren’t trying to become gymnasts; gymnasts aren’t really, underneath it all, trying to become professional bodybuilders.

 

Got that now? Most people would find it perfectly obvious.

 

Again, try to get over the fixation. All exercise ISN’T about being a "professional bodybuilder;" nobody asking for help here has the slightest hope of ever becoming a professional bodybuilder; and nobody here should set himself up for injury and failure by even trying to be one.  

 

One of the silliest discussions I’ve had in a long time.
 
Also training as a bodybuilder will not trun you into a bodybuilder overnight (else everyone would have a huge physique). It will bring you to the same level as those bodyweight trainers just faster.

 

Sigh. Training as a bodybuilder is not ever going to trun anyone asking for help here into a real bodybuilder within his lifetime, let alone overnight. It will also never, at any time, enable anyone to achieve “the same level” as “those” bodyweight trainers, because the exercises, skills, and goals involved in the two modalities are quite different to achieve different goals. Earlier, you were offered the chance to prove yourself as a bodyweight trainer. And?

 

Your confusion partly results from a puzzling fixation on “physique” for some reason. Must be from reading all those MuscleMags. But I gave you some references above to help you understand the goals, and I even gave you a video and a few simple exercises to check whether your bodybuilding training has enabled you to arrive at the same level. If not, when????? Let's have the report.

 

Shall we now start on swimmers? Same thing. Closer to home: powerlifters. Is their exercise goal to achieve “a certain physique" as a huge fat guy? Or is there mainly some other purpose? What could that possibly be? OK, here:

 

Quote

 

But, try saying to a powerlifter that you are quite muscular and look like a bodybuilder, the look he gives you is as if you are the reason for him not improving his squat.

 

A powerlifter in most cases is always ready with the explanation of how bodybuilders are non-functional, and how strength is should be the only goal, in addition to how bodybuilding is not even a sport.

 

     --https://werstupid.com/bodybuilders-vs-powerlifters/  

 

 

<repetition snipped>

 

However this topic was about working out with weights hence my replies about how to workout with weights.

 

It was. Then you wandered off topic with a false assertion in response to @sungod’s reasonable and cogent observation possibly helpful to other beginners interested in starting an exercise program. It was easy to correct, as your contention turned out merely solipsistic as usual.

 

Then, for some reason, you came out with a series of long superfluous tomes that did at least enable me to clear up some of the misconceptions, illogicality, and confusion in your posts, though you do seem a bit forgetful; and, most benevolently, point you in the right direction for more efficiently achieving your narrow purpose for exercising.????

 

In the tedious course of which, I noted that different methods of working out with weights--more generally, of engaging in resistance training using various forms of resistance, notably including bodyweight--can be used for different purposes. Some of these may be far more desirable and efficient than others according to personal goals. To judge by your own bafflement, that would seem Big News around here, so it may even be of interest to some other members.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by BigStar

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, BigStar said:

Back to Arnold. I don’t have the goal to attain “a certain physique” or "look" but, more intelligently and usefully, to maintain fitness with health for the least amount of time and effort spent.

 

To achieve that goal, I may use bodyweight, bands, weights, machines, a furniture moving strap, or all of them. Besides work on functional strength I’ll include flexibility and mobility. Note health. My main concern, as reflected in the object of your rants, my OP, is healthspan.

 

Hence low carb dieting as well to avoid insulin spikes; the occasional fast; and miscellaneous this & that.

 

The popular mind assumes a close correlation between health and fitness: you're fit, you're automatically healthy. But no. Turns out the quest for fitness and performance may not improve one's health much but may even undermine it. WOT? Suck it up. So I try to adjust the two modalities--fitness and health--track together as mush as I can, to keep the anabolic and catabolic in balance.

Now, to address your most important concern: the critical pose value. After achieving fitness, assuming a healthy diet, one looks like this: fit. Looking fit mean "looking fit," or "in shape," with what’s called “good body composition,” not looking like a bodybuilder. Why? Because one isn’t doing bodybuilding training to look like a bodybuilder. Why not? Because the goal is to achieve sustainable fitness with health for the least amount of time and effort spent. WOT? So what’s the purpose of that fitness then? Well, nobody ever lists better posing or even "muscle mass" as a target benefit, sorry. Here it is. First, there's Top 10 Benefits of Physical Activity. Exercise is that physical activity designed to enhance fitness in the 5 standard areas of

• body composition,
• cardiorespiratory endurance,
• flexibility,
• muscular endurance, and
• muscular strength.

Aha! By how much then? Enough so that you can handle confidently the challenges you may expect to encounter above your own resting threshold.

 

Clear now? One can get fit (see definition; memorize) by exercising in any number of ways. Bodyweight is one of them, and so it can still be "nice" after a few months or years or decades.

 

Why the emphasis on "physique?" Probably because bro science, or meathead logic, holds that the more you look like a bodybuilder, the more you'll attract women. Charles Atlas used that pitch immediately. But is that really true? Whoops. Not really.

 

     --Why Is Muscularity Sexy? Tests of the Fitness Indicator Hypothesis &nbsp;

 

That is, (cough) "toned," lean and fit.???? So that's actually good news for our members and within easy reach. Abs rate most immediatelhy attractive, but a sixpack is hardly necessary. A flat stomach will do; and if you're fit (assuming diet), you got it.

 

Funny some of the comments you'll see, like

"I can appreciate a toned down version of the look, but (from experience) I've got zero interest in a gym rat. I like people who have interesting lives, and spending a few hours a day in the gym concentrating on their own appearance often doesn't leave room for much else."

"I think what they don't like about big guys is the inevitable douch bag personality that accompanies all those muscles."

     --Girls, do you find ripped men attractive ?

 

'Course, it depends on the individual, but these ladies do have a point.

 

Now: can you get "there" (fit) faster using bodybuilding training? For the average person, no.

 

The reason is that

 

     --The Top 3 Reasons I Switched To Calisthenics After Years Of Lifting Weights
 

Reading the health forum daily, I see typical problems with backs, knees, and hips that could likely have been prevented if the poster had kept his muscles in continual balance and kept up his flexibility.

I suggest that for most members here it would also be ultimately self-defeating to read MuscleMag and aim for “a certain physique” as THE main goal. (Not that we don’t have an awful lot of insistence on self-defeating behavior around here irrespective of what anyone says.) However, ExRx publishes an excellent chart for various posing sequences here. Wanna go ahead and start practicing your posing now anyway, go right ahead. Never underestimate the power of the imagination.

If I use bodyweight for some exercises, it’s to achieve what bodyweight can do for me conveniently and safely at the time for one or more particular exercises. Same with all the others. Enough with all these simple-minded assumptions.
 
Sure the pics of those guys are nice but you get there faster with weights and progressive overload then bodyweight exercises.

No, you don’t get to have the advantages earned by calisthenics training (bodyweight exercise progressed)—which go far beyond mere pics--by working out with weights. Try to get over that fixation. You’ve confused goals again and consciously ignored the point.

 

You used the pics as a goal, so now look at the other goal mobility. . . . I like 8-10 more can go higher if i want or if i feel like it.

 

No, the pics weren't a goal and the point isn't (believe it not) to compare the physiques of bodybuilders with those of gymnasts. I said, "level of fitness." Fitness isn't "physique."

 

Those pics are of guys who became athletically muscular (quite sufficiently fit) in pursuit of a goal other than "a certain look" by means of bodyweight training. No, lifting weights will not bring you or anyone to that level of fitness because lifting weights will not teach the kinds of movements these guys have mastered. My point remains true that most anyone here would be happy to achieve that level of fitness remains true.

 

It appears you don't really know what mobility means, either, and think that lifting weights somehow provides it, pumping up and down. Lots of vids on youtube here.

 

Why don't you just, say, run through MOVE YOUR BODY // Primal Movement & Mobility Practice right quick, see how mobile you really are from your 8-10 reps of lifting something. Steve Maxwell has a good routine: Mobility Conditioning Circuit that should also help your understand the difference between fitness resulting from bodyweight training and just "building muscle"--and the superior implications of the former for aging well, since he's in his 60s. He's big on HIT, super slow, and TSC (Timed Static Contractions), by the way. You see how "making things heavier" doesn't seem to have been impeded his "progress."   

 

Can you give some studies that show that bodyweight exercises cause less strain then weight lifting at 8-10 range?

You’ve omitted the countless sets of lifting heavy weights the 8-10 range over a long period. Typical dodge used in countless such pro-weightlifting answers on the 'net. Not that I'm against weightlifting, mind you.

 

I mean to get tired you would have to do far more reps with bodyweight then with weights.

No. Yawn. Test this for yourself easily. See how many reps of this bodyweight exercise, a planche, in good form (note the form very carefully), performed slowly up and down (none o' that good ol’ pumpin' to use momentum, heh heh) you can do without getting tired:

 

Chris Heria

Pushups, so easy you say. Can't make them difficult. How many? Or how about your iron cross? Jeez, man. How about just a lil ol’ pistol squat? How many of those can you do in good form, holding each with a static contraction for 10 sec? We await your report.

 

So how does that compare ? You have said it a few times but I havent seen any proof actually.

 

The variables involved make a formal of apples-to-apples comparison quite difficult, though you seem usually content to compare apples with oranges. A particular bodyweight exercise may involve more OR fewer reps than a particular lift and a bodyweight exercise will often engage more, and different, muscles than a lift. But most agree on the point I made, and common sense will take you pretty far.

But of course bodyweight exercisers get injured as well and partly for the same reason: high numbers of sets & reps in the quest to overcome genetics. The young and naive come to bodyweight training also thinking mainly in terms of weight loss and "hypertrophy"on the cheap. Good news is that the average fitness warrior doesn't needs many such to attain functional fitness, safely, spending relatively little time working out. For example, for you oddball non-pro bodybuilders here, a full-body super slow bodyweight session in an hour:

 

With a $50 piece of kit. WOT??? Is he fit? Oh, I think quite sufficiently fit.???? Note that it’s fairly strenuous exercise even for this fit trainer taking needed breaks to instruct. Only 1 set per exercise. Note the far greater range of muscles exercised, the core engagement, the mobility enhancement.

 

The intensity can be increased even more by going even slower and to absolute failure--if you can do it in good form.  Redditor bodyweight fitness guru /u/MindfulMover works out only an hour week using the intensity gained from accomodating resistance. Moreover, as shown here, the intensity and the rapidity of moving from one set to another gives sufficient “cardio” to make all that extra steady state “cardio” superfluous. Same can be done with weights, bands, or machines. Despite all the brainwashing starting with Ken Cooper, steady-state, low-intensity activity isn’t the ONLY way to produce aerobic adaptations and benefits.

I’m too lazy to move quickly between sets, however, and I’m watching videos besides (unless at the gym, where I’m listening to my mp3 player), so I put in 30 min of intervals on the treadmill weekly. Intervals, to achieve, as always, max benefit/effort/time spent. Better to improve VO2peak, insulin resistance, resting heart rate, cardiovascular and metabolic health.  Slow steady state “cardio” is inefficient and, like superfluous reps, means needless repetitive stress wear & tear on the joints, tendons, and ligaments. Ironically it’s also negatively correlated with “gainz.”

 

       --https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22002517/

As Steve Maxwell says,

     --Dear Over-45 Trainee

 

 

You make a lot of assumptions, and yes if someone posts pics I assume its about looks not health. 

 

Then now you say you can make bodyweight exercises heavier but then your also putting more strain on the joints like with weights. I really don't see the difference.  The heavier it is in general the more strain on joints. You still havent explained to me how bodyweight is less damaging if it is equally heavy.

 

You see a lot of posts about bad  hips and knees, and you assume they lifted weights. while i just gave you research that lifting weights was far less dangerous then most other sports. I wonder where your bias comes from.

 

You really seem to have a problem with muscles so i think ill start to assume your one of those skinny guys who can't gain any muscles. Those guys seem to have the most problems with guys who are able to gain some muscles.

 

Its all about amounts of muscles, few girls would like a bodybuilder (100% agree I don't like the looks either). I am not even close to a bodybuilder. I do find the remarks a bit strange douchbag because of muscles.. hmmm  an other bias thing you post.

 

The pics of guys you post are in general what girls like but these bodies are not that easy to get too. Maybe the guy hangin in the rings but most others take more then a few years of training. If its about looks i rather get there fast.

 

I still think bodyweight is inferior and found some studies to back it up. Body weight has quite a few limitations. But again that is where your goal comes into play.

 

I still think you got a totally wrong idea of me, i do bodyweight exercises like dips and pull ups and some others too. They can be useful but are limited loading wise.

 

I also do my cardio just like you (maybe less) Still i see its benefits its not all about looks for me. I just LIKE working out with weights.

 

Most people talking about losing fat and getting in shape are talking about looks.. not fitness just you know.

[robblok]

19 minutes ago, BigStar said:

No, debunking your own imaginary claim again. This is fun.???? I never said weight training per se is bad for joints or more generally, resistance exercise.

 

Would it, however, be desirable to minimize the stress of resistance training on joints, ligaments, and tendons, esp for a “crustie,” as our Brits would say? OH. Well, yeah, that’s extremely desirable. Conventional weight training, esp when done w/ poor form, with all those needless sets & reps against heavy weight, doesn’t do that very well--or not at all for most amateur pumpers, notably those noobs starting in home “gyms” with little real knowledge of correct form and how important it is. I see a lot of poor instruction given by Thai trainers in Thai gyms, too. It’d be worth it for a serious gymster to pay a good online pro to critique his form.

None other than Sylvester Stallone came to that inevitable conclusion. He no longer does weight training: too hard on joints, esp his joints after, he admits, what he put them through (with the guidance of the best professional trainers, too). Now he uses—get this—resistance bands.

 

Also his injury thing for weightlifting seems to be a bit of maybe personal bias.

 

No, see the Steve Maxwell quotation below.
 

Re:
Less Injury Among Weightlifters Compared to Other Sports

Learn to read critically. The flaw in this lies in the definition of “injury.” Typically that’s defined as "Any traumatic act against the body sufficiently serious to have required first aid, filing of school and/or insurance reports, or medical treatment." Moreover, the study examined pros Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting" "one of the best Swiss Professional Hockey Team" etc. not yer average amateurs just trying to build "a bit of muscle," in your words.

So, only a tiny fraction and inapplicable. Did you require first aid or medical treatment for your shoulder? Recorded as a weightlifting injury? Uh—no.???? Similar flaws exist in all the other studies you’ve cited recently, as explained here: Has the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of Obesity Failed?

Fact is, weight training is notorious for causing injuries and so the forums are perpetually filled with injury reports and quests for cures. Ironically a common injury is dropping a weight on your foot. You seem to have forgotten about your crushed and bloodied toe, whoops.
 

     --Steve Maxwell, Dear Over-45 Trainee
 

These numbers seem to be consistent with me.. only 1 injury over my life as weightlifter.

 

Well, 2, actually, that we know about. Strive for greater consistency with yourself and more accuracy in reporting. It's common, however, to find quite another sort of testimonial, such as this one on reddit:

 

 

Guess each person will have decide his own risk/reward ratio. I always ask our "it's all genes" advocates here how one is know whether he's got the good genes so that he doesn't need to bother to hedge any bets, before it's too late? Studies with twins show only about 20% inherited protection from otherwise detrimental environmental factors. I never get answer to that.

 

But joints do a lot better before you reach 45 anyway.

 

 

Why injuries occur less often with bodyweight training is explained here:

 

10 Benefits of Calisthenics Training | Calisthenics vs Weights

 

And the number and severity of joint problems accelerate with age. How rapidly partly depends, obviously, on how much wear & tear you've put on them with countless sets and reps of heavy weights over many years.

 

Maybe Bigstar should be a little less bias same as he claims that Keto is the best for everyone (totally untrue). Seems that he sees his personal training as the best and project that on others.

 

Rather--and no “maybe” here--you should merely read what I actually say rather than imagine I claim something or the other. And then, worse, fatuously imagine you’re refuted yourself when you’ve actually offered up a wrong argument with false assumptions against yourself. Though amusing, it's really just a waste of time.????

 

I only claim that weightlifting will give you more results and faster then bodyweight exercises.

 

We've already addressed the problems with that claim.

 

If that was not the case the professionals bodybuilders would all use bodyweight exercises.

 

Round and round and round. Bodyweight training gives different results than bodybuilding training to achieve different goals. Gymnasts use bodyweight training to become gymnasts. If professional bodybuilders wanted to be gymnasts, rather than just pose, then they would all use bodyweight exercises to become gymnasts just as gymnasts do. No bodybuilder has ever won a gymnastics competition through bodybuilder training. Conclusion: professional bodybuilders aren’t trying to become gymnasts; gymnasts aren’t really, underneath it all, trying to become professional bodybuilders.

 

Got that now? Most people would find it perfectly obvious.

 

Again, try to get over the fixation. All exercise ISN’T about being a "professional bodybuilder;" nobody asking for help here has the slightest hope of ever becoming a professional bodybuilder; and nobody here should set himself up for injury and failure by even trying to be one.  

 

One of the silliest discussions I’ve had in a long time.
 
Also training as a bodybuilder will not trun you into a bodybuilder overnight (else everyone would have a huge physique). It will bring you to the same level as those bodyweight trainers just faster.

 

Sigh. Training as a bodybuilder is not ever going to trun anyone asking for help here into a real bodybuilder within his lifetime, let alone overnight. It will also never, at any time, enable anyone to achieve “the same level” as “those” bodyweight trainers, because the exercises, skills, and goals involved in the two modalities are quite different to achieve different goals. Earlier, you were offered the chance to prove yourself as a bodyweight trainer. And?

 

Your confusion partly results from a puzzling fixation on “physique” for some reason. Must be from reading all those MuscleMags. But I gave you some references above to help you understand the goals, and I even gave you a video and a few simple exercises to check whether your bodybuilding training has enabled you to arrive at the same level. If not, when????? Let's have the report.

 

Shall we now start on swimmers? Same thing. Closer to home: powerlifters. Is their exercise goal to achieve “a certain physique" as a huge fat guy? Or is there mainly some other purpose? What could that possibly be? OK, here:

 

     --https://werstupid.com/bodybuilders-vs-powerlifters/  

 

 

<repetition snipped>

 

However this topic was about working out with weights hence my replies about how to workout with weights.

 

It was. Then you wandered off topic with a false assertion in response to @sungod’s reasonable and cogent observation possibly helpful to other beginners interested in starting an exercise program. It was easy to correct, as your contention turned out merely solipsistic as usual.

 

Then, for some reason, you came out with a series of long superfluous tomes that did at least enable me to clear up some of the misconceptions, illogicality, and confusion in your posts, though you do seem a bit forgetful; and, most benevolently, point you in the right direction for more efficiently achieving your narrow purpose for exercising.????

 

In the tedious course of which, I noted that different methods of working out with weights--more generally, of engaging in resistance training using various forms of resistance, notably including bodyweight--can be used for different purposes. Some of these may be far more desirable and efficient than others according to personal goals. To judge by your own bafflement, that would seem Big News around here, so it may even be of interest to some other members.

 

 

Of course my shoulder injury was a weightlifting injury. But you never told me how many injuries you had from your perfect workouts ? I mean I got one injury (ok one more a 25 kg plate on my toe but id call that bad luck). Do you really think that those studies did not take into account your problems with the injury part of the definition. Then those researchers would have been stupid. 

 

https://www.ebtofficial.com/paininjury/injured-lifting-weights/#:~:text=Less Injury Among Weightlifters Compared,0.24-1 injury per 1000h.

 

maybe its you who should read more carefully 

 

1. Bodybuilding: sprains, tendinitis and cartilage degeneration

(those dont sound like what you consider an injury going to first aid for it) Seems like the kind i was describing) because none of these things would require first aid and yet they are listed as injury. Could it be that your bias as usual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BigStar]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

Do you really think that those studies did not take into account your problems with the injury part of the definition. Then those researchers would have been stupid.

They definitely did, as to do otherwise would require a different and far less convenient methodology. And so they are talking about injury epidemiology studies involving competitive athletes in these weight-training sports. The elites with all the advantages of elites, the genes, the trainers, etc. The problem arises when you try to generalize the conclusion in that study to the average amateur and noob. So, as I noted, a mere fraction of the reality.

 

Evidently, as a part of superficial reading, you didn't bother to look up the primary sources of the article rather than blithely accept some hack writer's interpretation promoting a website. I did, however. You did the same recently with a HuffPost article. That was a lot worse. The source had a major flaw invalidating it, but the writer threw in a lot of her own nonsense in addition. Probably some vegetarian.

[robblok]

@BigStar

 

Ill make it simpel for you my goal has never been to become a bodybuilder, nor has it been my goal to lift ever increasing heavy weights. I know almost nothing of muscle mags, i read research and don't take much stock in muscle mags with their ever changing do this for a big biceps ect ect. All fake I get my information from bodybuilding forums because i like that kind of training and people know about weight loss and building of muscle.

 

I just like to have some muscles, that is it. I have no clue about bodybuilders who is doing what the only guy I ever knew about as a bodybuilder was Arnold and a few of the other old timers. I really don't care much about the huge guys who wins or what. Never watched a bodybuilding match or studied guys in muscle mags (actually only pics of big guys i see are on the internet together with articles on how to do a squat safer or how to replace or do bench-press better) Those are the articles i like reading not how to gain 20 inches on your arms in 3 days.

 

I care about keeping my body in shape muscle wise, having a satisfying workout. I like doing stamina (cardio) work and hell i even do some mobility work too. (bet you never imagined that). I am already at a level of muscle that im satisfied with and a point i can't really pass. I also know that i won't pass any of the weights I have pushed before. Just not going to happen past my prime already. 

 

Again I don't really care about that I care about the feeling i get when i workout. The satisfaction of making it heavy and of course that means for me weights. 

 

My problems with bodyweight stem from the following you cannot compare it well with previous sessions as balance and cheating are easier. With weights you know what your lifting and how fast. So you know what your doing its easy quantifiable.  

 

Weights are for me the easiest way of keeping track of things seeing if im sliding back and how much. Probably the accountant in me. 

 

I put in some stretches some face pulls for shoulders and might even try foam rollers. But so far I have no injuries (besides the shoulder and the 25 kg disk from a torn belt while doing bodyweight dips ???? so your right it would have been safer with my own bodyweight) from all those hours and hours of gym work. Again tell me what you had because you stay awfully silent. 

 

You seem to have a lot more heroes and people you want to emulate then me. I just want to read articles to find out what works best based on scientific studies and so on.

 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, BigStar said:

They definitely did, as to do otherwise would require a different and far less convenient methodology. And so they are talking about injury epidemiology studies involving competitive athletes in these weight-training sports. The elites with all the advantages of elites, the genes, the trainers, etc. The problem arises when you try to generalize the conclusion in that study to the average amateur and noob. So, as I noted, a mere fraction of the reality.

 

Evidently, as a part of superficial reading, you didn't bother to look up the primary sources of the article rather than blithely accept some hack writer's interpretation promoting a website. I did, however. You did the same recently with a HuffPost article. That was a lot worse. The source had a major flaw invalidating it, but the writer threw in a lot of her own nonsense in addition. Probably some vegetarian.

Now all of a sudden its about the difference between elites and non elites. You never give up when proven wrong. Why in your opinion would elites not be a good choice ? I mean an elite soccer player has better genes then an non elite one. Same goes for weightlifters. 

 

So why would an elite weightlifter have more advantage then an elite soccer player ? Or are you saying they are comparing elite weightlifters with noob soccer players (then you do have a point)

[robblok]

https://www.ebtofficial.com/paininjury/injured-lifting-weights/#:~:text=Less Injury Among Weightlifters Compared,0.24-1 injury per 1000h.

 

This study already mentioned takes into account the things you said were wrong with the other study. This one reviews 20 studies. So again bodybuilding is best (compared to powerlifting and crossfit) and more so then other sports. Not so strange as bodybuilders are not lifting for high weights (powerlifters) and crossfit.. ehh no doubt the guys are fit but their training is also more injury prone.

 

 

A Systematic Review of 20 Studies

The article was published 2016 and is a systematic review of injury epidemiology in weight- training sports. Twenty articles, with data from weightlifting (n=8), powerlifting (n=6), body-building(n=4) and Crossfit (n=2) from around the world, were included in the review. The authors found a diverse set of studies to review: there were for example differences in the populations, varying sample sizes, different definitions of injury, different study durations and different ways to report the data. With this said, when including a diverse set of articles and sub-populations, the results might be more general and thus applicable for a bigger crowd.

[robblok]

https://www.germanjournalsportsmedicine.com/archiv/archiv-2018/issue-9/the-epidemiological-profile-of-calisthenics-athletes/

 

Bigstar his favorite 1.22 injuries per 1000 hours

 

https://www.ebtofficial.com/paininjury/injured-lifting-weights/#:~:text=Less Injury Among Weightlifters Compared,0.24-1 injury per 1000h.

 

Injury incidence was fairly consistent across the different sports; 1-2 injuries per lifter /year or 2-4 injuries per 1000h. However, three of the bodybuilding-studies reported lower rates; 0.12-0.7 injury per lifter per year and 0.24-1 injury per 1000h.

 

All in all not much difference and certainly not worth the scary stories especially if you believe the bodybuilder studies then it would be even better then Bigstar his favorite.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1439399/#:~:text=If incidence is calculated according,a predominance for the knee.

 

If incidence is calculated according to exposure of running time the incidence reported in the literature varies from 2.5 to 12.1 injuries per 1000 hours of running. 

 

So weightlifting bodybuilding beats running hands down injury wise, is close to or even better as calisthenics.

 

So all a big storm in a teacup based on bias from a poster.