There appears to be an almost cult-like group of trainers devoted to bodyweight exercise programs. This idea of designing an entire conditioning program using only bodyweight as resistance is especially popular in the martial arts community. In one online comparison on bodyweight to free weights, the author stated that bodyweight exercises are superior for developing muscular endurance and promoting "bodily awareness". The article states that weight training is better for developing "brute strength" and promoting "weight awareness". In another book, I read that we should be using bodyweight because that is what animals do, so what is natural is therefore best. Another common argument against weights is that they will make you slow and bulky. I will attempt to look at all of these ideas and find out which ones have merit and expose the fallacious ones being proliferated throughout the fitness industry.

The first issue I will address is the issue of "body awareness" vs. "weight awareness". Some of our more emotive proponents of calisthenics also refer to the heightened feeling of aliveness in bodyweight exercises. The argument made is that during bodyweight exercises, such as bridges, hand-stand pushups and one-legged squats, one must be aware of the relative position of each part of his body. This benefits wrestlers, because during the course of a match, they will be thrown into a wide variety of different positions. Next, the author talks about "weight awareness", in which you pay attention to the location of the weight without being aware of your body positioning. First of all, if you do not have feelings of "aliveness" when catching several hundred pounds over your head in a snatch, chances are good that you won't be alive for very long! As for bodily awareness, as the weight increases in the snatch, the margin of error becomes significantly smaller. Thus, the slightest deviation of any part of your body will result in a missed lift. The next point to be made is that in wrestling, you do have to be aware of another weight, your opponent! If you do not lift other objects in training, how do you expect to develop the muscles and functional movement patterns involved in lifting objects off the ground? There is simply no bodyweight exercise that is equivalent to a deadlift or either of the Olympic lifts. Bridging does develop the posterior chain, but in an entirely different motor recruitment pattern. It is a good exercise and still valid for the training of a wrestler, but it will not compensate for the lack of heavy pulling exercises. Therefore, in any sport where you are working against external objects, "weight awareness" must be developed, if such a distinction is really necessary.

The next common endorsement for calisthenics is that they will develop muscular endurance. This certainly can be true, especially in the ways that they are commonly implemented. If you aspire to 500 hindu pushups and 1000 hindu squats, then yes, you will develop muscular endurance. However, weighted movements can also be used as a method to develop muscular endurance. Just spend 45 minutes with a kettlebell and tell me that this is not possible! Furthermore, at a certain point, endurance training is just as specific as strength training. At the elite levels, the body's ability to increase its VO2 Max and Lactate Threshold reaches the point of diminishing returns, any further improvement is a result of improved neuromuscular efficiency (Seiller, Time Course Adaptations). Thus, it does not matter whether you build up your VO2 Max and Lactate thresholds through jogging, biking, swimming, calisthenics, weight training or sports. After you have done this, only practice in your specific activity will improve your neuromuscular efficiency and therefore improve your endurance. However, most athletes should not let endurance training take primacy over strength training. You cannot dominate the field with endurance, you need power. Tony Cecchine said something poignant on this topic, "No one beats you instantly with endurance. They can beat you with strength and with technique instantly however. It's up to all of us to find our balance." This does not take away from the value of bodyweight conditioning, but it is time to realize that other forms of training can stand alongside it on the pedestal of muscular endurance glory.

Some bodyweight enthusiasts also report gains in strength as a result of performing high-rep training. They cite two reasons, the building of "functional" muscles and the strengthening of stabilizer muscles. I will add a third reason, if you start at a low enough strength level, the addition of any type of training will result in a strength increase. I call this the "untrained effect" and it is the culprit behind a lot of bad research and theories on fitness. The building of functional muscle is a rather interesting argument. If you do enough reps of anything, that exercise becomes your function, thus you will develop more muscles to carry out that function. They point to bodybuilders who develop "beach muscles", namely the biceps and chest, which really don't allow them to do anything that they could not do before. Well, if you think of a bodybuilder as a curling and cable-crossover machine, then yes, it has become more efficient. It is just doubtful that such a machine would ever be useful in real life. The idea of weight training resulting in slow, bulky, lumbering ogres is a result of bodybuilding methods being applied to sports training. Speed is something that you must train for and bulk is something that you must eat for. Regardless of whether or not weights are used to achieve these ends, your muscles will not know the difference. It is thus important that a trainer must select exercises that will contribute to the desired function of the individual. It does not become a matter of weights vs. no weights, but a matter of application. The last argument is that bodyweight exercises develop stabilizer muscles. They pass on this image of stabilizers as some tiny, internal muscles that are vital to our existence. "You cannot lift a bag of groceries or walk properly without stabilizers!" First of all, any muscle can be a stabilizer; it simply depends on the movement taking place. Core stabilization is the most popular myth out there today. Swiss balls are selling like hot cakes because everyone thinks they need a stable core. Try lifting a heavy weight over your head without a stable core. Is prior Swiss Ball training necessary to ensure stability in such a motion? Probably not, thus forget about the stabilizer argument and simply pick exercises that challenge your coordination.

My ultimate point is that one should not dogmatically stick to one type of training and discard the rest as useless. I certainly don't promote the idea of throwing all bodyweight exercises out the window. In fact, I advocate that if people choose to employ them, that they should be learned with the same attention to detail as with weighted exercises. Oftentimes, bodyweight exercises are the most convenient or only method available, but this certainly does not make them superior. It is through proper application that training methods become effective. Pavel Tsatsouline has a saying, "Low tech, high concept", which perfectly sums up my message. If you train smart, your muscles will not care where the resistance is coming from.