Anyone feel in terms of results the gym is overrated?

completedit wrote: »

It might seem like I'm being a bit flippant in the OP but I genuinely feel my body composition is better now. Maybe I get too puffy and stocky from the gym and by just walking, running and doing some BW stuff, my body looks better less bulky since I'm short. If I was over 6 foot there's no way I'd have this opinion.

What the guys said in this thread is that for certain things the equipment in a gym lends itself to particular goals. Without access to a barbell and rack it's very hard to get really stronger in absolute terms and progress in measurable increments. I would say as well that if someone was really focused on hypertrophy then a commercial gym offers a lot of machines, dumbbells and specialist equipment that can really help.

But... Someone could do a program based on a mixture of runs, high intensity circuits and body weight training and if their diet was dialled in then all of that could leave them looking pretty good with a shirt off. High volumes of push-ups and pull-ups are classic builders of the upper body, and combine that with someone getting to reasonable body fat levels because they are burning calories via running, circuits etc. Then yes, their body composition end up being very good.

This approach suits some people. Without knowing more info it's hard to say, but a lot depends on what exactly you were doing in the gym in comparison. I see people using submaximal weights, short ranges of motion, never going near failure, and never progressing their programming. In theory if you put a lot of those people and they had to walk, run, do circuits etc. in lieu of the gym then yes, they might end up working harder...

When you say you're less bulky, do you mean you're leaner than you were before? I'm assuming you don't have body fat measurements to compare but your waist measurement tells a lot.

I obviously said above you can build a decent physique with the right diet and while limited to bodyweight resistance.

But at the same time, let's not pretend that have access to more extensive equipment is not a major aid when it comes to getting significant mass gain and hypertrophy going. To say major aid is probably underplaying it.

When it comes to people adding mass through bodyweight only training, there are YouTube calisthenics phenomenons working out in Brooklyn, or Olympic gymnasts, who are jacked, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule.

If someone's goal is to develop *some* muscle mass and a lot of functional strength then it can be a rewarding route. But if they have more conventional physique goals centring around hypertrophy then they really do need gym access or a well-equipped at-home equivalent.

I have a similar view around kettlebell-centred training and olympic lifting.

There are jacked kettlebell guys out there, and olympic weightlifters at the highest level are hypertrophied. But, as with bodyweight resistance training, the beauty of these training modalities does not centre on their utility for hypertrophy of most trainees.

The gymnast above, by the way - if that's a basic physique, I would definitely take it! I'm sure he's a complete short arse though, and there's the whole Robbie Williams thing.

Felipe Hissing Violist wrote: »

How can you build your biceps without weights?

Pull up variations would get you a certain distance, but if the broader objective was bigger arms then actually tricep work would be more important. I suppose that would be where close grip pushup variations would come in.

Shoulder work could be more of a challenge with bodyweight only training. Bands would be an easy fix, but then that's where the slide happens and before you know it you're in a fully kitted out gym :pac:

It's probably possible to work around all of this, but the point is that it would be a very suboptimal way to go about it compared to tried and tested isolation training using barbells, dumbbells, cables etc. Where you have more variation, greater ability to vary angles, potential to use some training protocols you can't with body weight stuff etc.

I don't think he was ever going to listen to an argument that would change his mind, but since he asked...

From a physique point of view a walk might burn a negligible amount of calories. But a daily walk, for recovery, adds up to a not so negligible amount of calories. Still a small amount of calories in the great scheme of things, but it might be calories being burned in a way that won't upset the rest of your training where the main work is being done. Plently of jacked guys out there not afraid to go for a walk first thing in the morning. If it's good enough for Dave Tate... Walking is one of a few steady state cardio tools he recommends a few times a week.

There's a broader question of whether getting any form of active recovery improves your fitness. That particular bit doesn't, but what if over time it's part of what keeps you moving? Or what if that stupid daily walk is the beginning of a lifelong devotion to fitness. If you didn't bother because someone on boards.ie told you it was a waste of time...