Let's play a game of ranking the below 5 kinds of body type from the most possible to be
elite in calisthenics to the least possible to be elite in calisthenics. Number 1,
a guy with a super jacked upper body and a muscular lower body like a gymnast. Number 2,
a guy with a super jacked lower body and a muscular upper body like a cyclist. Number 3,
a guy with both a super jacked upper body and a super jacked lower body like a weightlifter.
Number 4, a guy with both a muscular upper body and a muscular lower body like most popular
calisthenics YouTubers. Number 5, a guy who is overall skinny like me. I am sure everyone will
agree that rank 1 is the gymnast body type, and rank 5 is the cyclist body type. However,
I have an impression that most people will rank the popular calisthenics YouTubers type of body
at the number 2 spot, which is why I want to make this video to explain why that is wrong. Before I
explain further, I want to acknowledge that not everyone does calisthenics purely for the sake
of achieving elite moves like the one-arm pull-up and planche. Maybe your main motivation for doing
calisthenics is to build beautiful muscles. There is nothing wrong with that, but I want to let you
know that the number 2 spot actually goes to the overall skinny body type like me. A long time ago,
I came across an article titled "Who's the Most Impressive Powerlifter?" You might wonder,
"How is this related to this video?" But this article actually indirectly answers our question
about why the number 2 spot belongs to the skinny body type like me, so please bear with me. The
purpose of the article is to figure out how to compare relative strength among weightlifters in
different weight classes. The most commonly used formula to measure relative strength is "generated
force" divided by "body weight," aka the infamous strength to weight ratio. However, if we look at
the powerlifting world records among different weight classes, you will realize that the strength
to weight ratio drops off almost linearly as the weight classes become bigger. Therefore, clearly,
this is an inaccurate way to measure relative strength. A better way to measure relative
strength is actually called "allometric scaling," which is originated from biology. The idea is that
the muscle contractile force is related to the cross-sectional area, but muscle mass is
related to the volume. Therefore, while our muscle mass increases in a power of 3, the force it can
generate should increase only in a power of 2. Consequently, a better way to measure relative
strength is actually "generated force" divided by "body weight" squared and then cube root. If we
look at the powerlifting world records again, we can see that the allometric scaling scores
are fairly similar and unbiased among different weight classes. OK, so how is this related to
calisthenics? Let's use the one-arm pull-up as an example. Based on my latest DEXA scan,
my right arm muscle mass is 7.7 lbs and my total weight is 134.3 lbs. In order to simplify things,
let's ignore my lats and core and assume I do the one-arm pull-up all through my arms. Based on
allometric scaling, the relative strength I need to have is 134.3 divided by 7.7 squared and cube
root, which is 34.4. If I were to build muscles on my body evenly throughout to 165 lbs like all
the other beautiful calisthenics YouTubers, my right arm muscle mass should be around 9.5 lbs.
However, assuming my relative strength is still the same 34.4, I would be able to generate only
153.7 lbs of force, which is a significant 12 lbs short for the one-arm pull-up. In other words,
it is more difficult for guys like Chris Heria and Daniel Vadnal to do the one-arm pull-up than me.
If achieving elite moves in calisthenics is more important than having beautiful muscles for you,
you should certainly keep your body light and lean like me to make things easier instead of being
salty in the comments section like these guys. This is also the exact same reason why taller
guys have a more difficult time in calisthenics than shorter guys, which ironically is commonly
accepted in the calisthenics community. On the other hand, back to our example,
if I could somehow increase my right arm to 9.5 lbs, but somehow keep the weights of other parts
of my body the same either through skipping leg day or some wizardry, that would be even more
ideal for calisthenics and guess what, this is the exact same idea behind the gymnast body type,
which we all agree to rank as 1. So now you should agree with me that based on the theory,
the correct rankings should look like this. Now you might wonder, "How is it possible to
train only for strength but not for muscle mass?" Yes, not only are there theories behind it,
I also have proven it empirically myself. Recently I joined the list of people being able to do the
one-arm pull-up on YouTube. After a few weeks into my one-arm pull-up training a year ago,
I went to do a DEXA scan to see what my body was like before I achieved the one-arm pull-up. It
showed that my total weight was 132.2 lbs, and my body fat was 14 percent. The total mass of my
arms were 16.2 lbs. After about a year of intense training, I achieved the one-arm pull-up and went
back to get another DEXA scan. I felt way stronger than one year ago, and my new weight is 134.3 lbs,
which means I only put on 2.1 lbs. 2.1 lbs are so minimal that I think we can
see it as a fluctuation and view it as if my weight didn't really change. However,
if we break down the extra 2.1 lbs, we will get the results showing that 1.4 lbs went to the arms,
0.2 lbs went to the legs, and 0.5 lbs went to my trunk. I think what this means is that you will
still grow a tiny amount of muscles even if you only focus on training for strength. In terms of
the theory of the differences between training for strength and training for size, this guy talked
about this topic for about 30 minutes on YouTube. A quick summary is "Yes." If you are a beginner,
training for strength and training for muscle mass are the same thing, but if you are not a beginner,
they will be different. Training for strength means low reps per set, high intensity,
and long rest time between sets. Training for size means high reps per set, low intensity, short rest
time between sets and high overall volume. They are completely different. Now you might wonder,
"Is it possible to train for both?" Yes, but you will need to double your effort and probably need
help from professionals for optimal programming. Of course, if fitness is your full-time job,
you should aim for both, but if you are like me, you probably should pick one direction and stick
to it instead of chasing two rabbits and catching neither. As a part-time fitness guy myself,
the decision of prioritizing training for strength over training for looks was pretty obvious.
I have zero plans to sell online workout programs like almost all other calisthenics YouTubers,
so I don't need to focus on making my body look beautiful in order to use it as a marketing asset
to lure customers. I am also already married, so I don't need to try to attract more women.
I also understand that in order to get results for bigger muscles, it's not just about training. You
have to mess with your diet, meaning eating a calorie surplus, drinking protein shakes, that
kind of thing, which I am totally not down to do. However, I have huge respect for people who have
the guts to do it. In any case, having been into calisthenics part-time for two and a half years,
I have achieved the one-arm pull-up. I say that's not too bad. I am also on a mission to further
prove that big beautiful muscles are also not required for other elite moves like the planche,
handstand push-up, back lever, and front lever. Lastly, here I am without a shirt. As you can see,
I am just a guy with a normal body. Nothing too crazy. I am a living proof that you don't
need to look like supermodels like other calisthenics YouTubers to achieve an elite
calisthenics move like the one-arm pull-up. Thanks for watching. Make sure to like,
subscribe, and check out my website geekclimber.com. See you in the next video.