People often ask me what the true definition of "calisthenics" is. In the simplest terms, it basically constitutes performing strength building exercises using nothing more than what good old mother nature gave you. This means not doing any type of "weight training" in the typical sense.
Now, this does
not mean that I am anti-weightlifting, not in the slightest. I actually have a background of going to the gym for 10+ years before ever getting into this whole calisthenics movement, so I definitely endorse the merits of both. As a matter of fact, for many, it would be most beneficial to dabble in a mixture of the two. However, for the most part, I currently pretty much do nothing but calisthenics, and also endorse that to my friends and clients.
Here comes the tricky part. Every once in awhile, someone will "catch" me with some sort of weight in my hand, be it a sandbag, dumbbell, etc., and ask me if I'm cheating on my own principles. Well, not necessarily. There indeed is a fine line, and some people may have differing definitions, but here is my take on it. By adding weight to an exercise that I already perform consistently without weights, it is merely making it more challenging through increased resistance. For example, slapping on a backpack full of rocks when doing pull ups, doing dips with a weight belt, running with a weight vest, or practicing punching drills with light dumbbells are all effective methods of taking your skills to the next level.
In a nutshell, I am still lifting my
body as the main source of resistance, and not solely relying on external weights to provide it. The idea is that you do these same exercises regardless of whether you have the weights or not. The weights are only to compliment the movement to make it more difficult.
Here is a great article about adding weights to simple calisthenics.
