3 ms·
Most people are never going to come close to the level where it makes a difference. For me I saw 10x better results with calisthenics than intermediate powerli
by stayfrosty420 5y ago
Most people are never going to come close to the level where it makes a difference.
For me I saw 10x better results with calisthenics than intermediate powerlifting because the amount of volume I could get in was much much higher on compound exercises.
It's only when you get to an advanced level of strength, where advanced calisthenics exercises don't quite cut it, and almost no one gets to that level.
- slothtrop 5y agoBig lifts, typical of strength training, are also compound exercises. I don't see a way you can match the level of potential volume even at intermediate level without putting in much more time with calisthenics, for legs anyway. That is, sets x reps x weight. For pressing you can get more volume doing just push ups at intermediate, but you won't yield the same level of absolute strength, i.e. you wont just automatically be able to bench 200 lbs by virtue of push up volume. You can get the best of both worlds by doing "frequency method" push-ups as in linear programs like Greyskull.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y agoI think you’re missing the point here, which isn’t efficiency in activity but efficiency in ease of activity.
- slothtrop 5y ago"The point" is muscle-bulding and bone density, as that is what the above user was responding to in context.
- scns 5y agoYou need to make calisthenics excercises progressively harder instead of endlessly increasing the volume, if you want to increase strength. The pinnacle are pushups on one arm, Bruce Lee demonstrated those on two fingers. The book Convict Conditioning contains progressions for several bodyweight excercises.