Not into weight lifting. Is it really necessary at all?

No, you do not have to lift barbells, dumbbells, or use RT machines if you do not want to.

There is absolutely no reason why you need to lift *A* weight to strength train.

You do have to lift weight, but it can be your own, or you can use bands for RT. I'm not sure why some people in this thread are telling you that you can not maintain muscle/bone density unless you literally lift some external weight.

Is a squat, or a press-up not strength training? A lunge? a pull-up? Aren't they some of the best?

Sure, those are all great. But it takes a heck of a lot more squats and lunges at bodyweight to get the same benefits as 5-12 with added free weights. I don't think anyone is saying that OP HAS to lift weights specifically, but lifting free weights is often the quickest and most effective way to get the benefits she is looking at, like preserving muscle mass and increasing bone density.

If she's happier doing a few hours a week of bodyweight exercises, then awesome, go for it! But if it's a matter of "I hate all of these options" then weight lifting will at least be the shortest workout times for the same payoff.

show previous quotes

No, you do not have to lift barbells, dumbbells, or use RT machines if you do not want to.

There is absolutely no reason why you need to lift *A* weight to strength train.

You do have to lift weight, but it can be your own, or you can use bands for RT. I'm not sure why some people in this thread are telling you that you can not maintain muscle/bone density unless you literally lift some external weight.

Is a squat, or a press-up not strength training? A lunge? a pull-up? Aren't they some of the best?

Sure, those are all great. But it takes a heck of a lot more squats and lunges at bodyweight to get the same benefits as 5-12 with added free weights. I don't think anyone is saying that OP HAS to lift weights specifically, but lifting free weights is often the quickest and most effective way to get the benefits she is looking at, like preserving muscle mass and increasing bone density.

If she's happier doing a few hours a week of bodyweight exercises, then awesome, go for it! But if it's a matter of "I hate all of these options" then weight lifting will at least be the shortest workout times for the same payoff.

There are ways to make body weight exercises difficult enough where one would have trouble squeezing out 5-8 reps for a given movement so one is not any faster than the other, or more effective or more efficient for building strength & muscle.

Bodyweight exercises. Easy, done at home with limited props. Probably won't make you Hercules, but will improve strength if you keep making your routine more challenging as you go. Yes, being strong matters. I'm in my early 40s and feel it's of utmost importance, and yes, I am just starting out but have always been quite strong (cuz I always find reasons to lift heavy things on occasion). My mom at 59 has lost weight but has no strength. She is injured very easily. A little fall and she's in for surgery to repair the damage. Get strong.

You can get muscular and get the results you're talking about with bodyweight training alone, yes. However you have to be willing to take that training a lot farther than what bodyweight training and yoga go into. You have to look more closely at what gymnasts do for their training to get ideas of how to take bodyweight training to THAT level.

EDIT:

The bottom line is that many people, including yourself, have goals that can only be accomplished by really stepping up the intensity of their training to something that can truly be called high intensity training. The forms of Yoga and Pilates which are generally marketed to the public do not take it to this level of intensity and, as such, should only be regarded as supplemental training. There are studios out there that teach the higher intensity forms needed to produce these results, but they are rare, expensive, and practicing these forms alone in the privacy of your own home without a licensed instructor present is neither safe nor practical unless you are at a very advanced level already.

Anybody that thinks that professional athletes don't do some form of weight lifting is in denial

show previous quotes

Other examples I think of are ice skaters, swimmers, gymnasts.

You don't think they lift? I know for a fact swimmers do, and I bet dollars to donuts the others do as well.

Swimmers, I don't know. Probably depends. I used to ice skate. Back then, no they didn't. Ballet was encouraged to supplement. No one ever used to weight lift. Now, I don't know. But they had the same muscles back then.

Also, my husband doesn't lift but has really muscular legs from years of playing soccer. That is muscle memory cause he does nothing now. But they are still rock hard. Go figure. :-/

I'm thinking that your definition of muscular and others here may be quite different. E. G. Every soccer player I've seen has chicken legs

I don't think "chicken legs" is the right term for it. Have you ever seen their quads? The lower leg may be small, but that is certainly not true for the quad area.

That comes from strength training, BTW.

"Weightlifting" is not necessary but I think some form of strength/resistance training IS necessary to be strong and healthy. Like others have said: Strength, bone density, muscle retention (while dieting and as we get older) a little higher metabolic rate.

Being stronger is amazingly useful in day to day life. *caution wife bragging ahead* My wife has been lifting with me for two years now. She is not really any bigger than she started out, in fact she has lost weight, but is much stronger.

You can go from a gallon of milk being heavy to carrying in all the groceries at once in a short time. She recently helped me carry a very heavy cooler to the truck when I went hunting. I was really surprised with how strong she has become.

Playing with our girls at the park and she lifted our daughters (youngest is 36 lbs) up to the bar like it was no big deal. Being a strong role model for them is also pretty awesome.

I see little old ladies with white hair, barely lifting their feets and scared of falling and braking a hip. Their problem is not the fact that they are old, it is the fact that they lost muscle mass. I intend to be a little old lady that walk with vitality, so I do my best to build muscle mass and maintain what I have.

I hate cardio, I still manage to do it because I want to have a healthy cardio-respiratory system.

Every single professional dancer I know lifts weights, ESPECIALLY the women.

My mother used to dance, and just the other day she was telling me about how her instructors had them lifting weight. She had them doing cleans, actually.

I think some form of strength/resistance training IS necessary to be strong and healthy. Like others have said: Strength, bone density, muscle retention (while dieting and as we get older) a little higher metabolic rate.

I agree that it is necessary for maintaining overall health as we age. It's less important to many that are under 30. Arriving at 60 years old and realizing that you've lost a ton of muscle is a bad place to be. Better off on trying to save as much as possible while you still have the gas in the tank.

show previous quotes

No, you do not have to lift barbells, dumbbells, or use RT machines if you do not want to.

There is absolutely no reason why you need to lift *A* weight to strength train.

You do have to lift weight, but it can be your own, or you can use bands for RT. I'm not sure why some people in this thread are telling you that you can not maintain muscle/bone density unless you literally lift some external weight.

Is a squat, or a press-up not strength training? A lunge? a pull-up? Aren't they some of the best?

Sure, those are all great. But it takes a heck of a lot more squats and lunges at bodyweight to get the same benefits as 5-12 with added free weights. I don't think anyone is saying that OP HAS to lift weights specifically, but lifting free weights is often the quickest and most effective way to get the benefits she is looking at, like preserving muscle mass and increasing bone density.

If she's happier doing a few hours a week of bodyweight exercises, then awesome, go for it! But if it's a matter of "I hate all of these options" then weight lifting will at least be the shortest workout times for the same payoff.

There are ways to make body weight exercises difficult enough where one would have trouble squeezing out 5-8 reps for a given movement so one is not any faster than the other, or more effective or more efficient for building strength & muscle.

Of course there are. Again, I'm not saying lifting weights is necessary at all, just that it increases efficiency. A Bulgarian split squat is going to be more challenging than a traditional squat. But a Bulgarian done with weights is still always going to be more challenging than a Bulgarian split squat done with just body weight.

Your example is like saying sqatting 250 is more difficult that sqatting 100 lbs. Some people can't squat 100 lbs. Just as some can't do weighted BSS's.
So when a Bulgarian split squat is too easy, move to a skater, then move to a pistol. Then start adding weight. But for the average person (let alone the demographic of the OP) it's pointless to force traditional weight lifting down their throat when body weight moves can accomplish the same thing.

No, my example is like saying squatting 50lbs is more physically challenging than squatting 20lbs and assuming the person in question can squat 50lbs safely, they will get results in less time from squatting the 50 over the 20.

I'm not pushing anything down anyone's throat, nor am I saying that results cannot be achieved from body weight alone or that OP even needs to lift. I was replying to a specific post asking why so many posters were promoting lifting over bodyweight alone, and using examples laid out by that poster. That's all.

Let's face it, if you dislike lifting, you're not going to do it, whether we tell you its necessary or not.

I believe strength training is critical to being healthy. It is especially critical for women, as they get older, for bone health (i.e. lifting a heavy load strengthens your bones, not just your muscles).

And just for the sake of keeping it real, those ballerinas you're talking about have been training and eating a certain way for most of their lives. You're not going to get a body like that from a few months of yoga and pilates.

This. Sounds to me like OP just loves arguing, no matter how many good answers she's getting. Shrug.

show previous quotes

First, there is a difference between being really really lean (like the ballerina), and being muscular.

Second, the health benefits of lifting go far beyond just muscles. Strength for daily life, bone density, etc...

Third, strength training is a fairly broad term. Yes, in most cases weights are the most effective form, but there are a lot of good body weight exercises that can be done. I've done some yoga in my day, but I'm certainly no expert. IME, yoga is great for targeting supporting/stabilizing muscles, but doesn't do much to really strengthen the major muscle groups.

I disagree that ballerinas (professional) are really lean, as opposed to really muscular. They are both in my opinion. Their legs are very muscular.

As far as the benefits, yes I agree. I'm just trying to decide if these benefits need to be obtained from traditional weight lifting, or can be obtained from other exercise...which will also build muscle.

Other examples I think of are ice skaters, swimmers, gymnasts.

I think the definition of muscular varies from person to person. However, while professional female ballet dancers have to have lots of strength, they are hardly what most would consider to be muscular. When a person's professional body type demands that their thighs be the same diameter as their calves, the focus is not on muscles, it's on physical appearance only, which is why so many dancers have eating disorders. They can't maintain much muscle while denying themselves a healthy amount of food. Male ballet dancers are an entirely different story, as are gymnasts, figure skaters, etc.

If you did 2 30-45 minute sessions of compound lifting a day- you would be totally set.

Seriously- you do enough for your body as it is- but a little weight training would go a LONG way.

Either do it in the form of HIIT training or do it in the form of true compound lift training- and you would be golden.

You don't need to do ALL the things ALL the time- some of us just like to. You can do yoga/pilates/spin/dance/whatever AND do a little weight training.

I'm a dancer.
I weight lift.
I occasionally do cardio when I want to (I hate cardio)
And I dance- a lot.

But the cardio and lifting needs to be done. And I LOVE lifting- I truly love it- but it's not a priority- so it's hard sometimes for me to want to make time for it. But I do- because it needs to be done.

A day? Or did you mean a week?

But for the average person (let alone the demographic of the OP) it's pointless to force traditional weight lifting down their throat when body weight moves can accomplish the same thing.

If the OP has tried lifting and truly doesn't like it, then I agree. But, average people who never lifted before can learn it and like it, especially when educated about the benefits. Pointing to myself as that average person who never really thought of it as an option, until joining this forum.