And I'm glad you're here, Lauren, to raise these points and talk about them with me and everyone else, and keep the conversation flowing.
100 pushups by Christmas
- Thread starter newGuy12
- Start date
And I'm glad you're here, Lauren, to raise these points and talk about them with me and everyone else, and keep the conversation flowing.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've always done push-ups where you touch something to the ground each time, either your nose, your chest, or your gut, whichever comes first. It looks like he's only going to slightly less than 90 degree bend in his arms.
Is one way better than others? I could easily do 100 push-ups like he did in the video, but I don't know about going all the way down, I haven't maxed out on that in a long, long time.
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
newGuy12
Master of Arts
Right! I thought that that video was useful because the instructor in it demonstrated the "authorized rest position". That is, you don't let your back sag. You get into what in yoga is called the "downward dog" position.
In other words, if someone does, say, 'x' number of pushups, and then gets into the "authorized rest position", then (as I understand it, which may be wrong) the set continues. That is, the person then goes from the authorized rest position. The next pushup is 'x + 1', not '1'.
As far as going down low enough, a user posted earlier in this thread that if the chest touches the ground, that is certainly the greatest range of motion, isn't it? I mean, that's as far as one can go.
Now, I have seen on other sites where the US Army has a guideline that the upper arms have to "break the horizontal plane". In other words, another person would look and see, as one doing the pushups goes further down, the upper arms would eventually go "horizontal". Once you pass that point, you have "broken the horizontal plane".
Now, of course, for me personally, I respect the form. I wish to do the pushups "properly", BUT, I also understand that even if I do NOT realize the fullest range of motion, for me (I am very much out of shape and weak), I will be stronger even if I fail to do them to military standards.
So, for me, it is a target, an aspiration. I wish to make note of the "authorized rest position", because... Even a very capable person, one who can do, say 50 pushups in a row ---- Bam! Even a very strong person may HAVE to assume the rest position for a few seconds as they strive to do 100.
In my mind, only the most vigorous practitioner could get down and knock out 100 WITHOUT ASSUMING THE REST POSITION EVER.
I mean, surely very few people can do that. That would be total flat out gung-fu!!! That's black belt level of fitness, or perhaps much greater. So I will allow myself to rest from time to time IN A SET, under the condition that I only go to the authorized rest position.
I have the feeling that that position is specified for safety, as well (I have no knowledge of physical therapy, or anatomy or exercise, I just _assume_ this). I do know this -- if the "downward dog" pose (which is what this is) is done properly, one gets a good stretch in the calves. Also, because of the "inversion" qualities, you can get a benefit, as well -- blood goes to the head, and so forth.
Off to the drive way for the maximum number for today!!!
OP
OP
newGuy12
Master of Arts
Okay, I know that something is happening in my body. I "feel" different in my upper chest. The count is not increasing as rapidly as I had hoped (I just did 12 -- this was all I could do "in one lick", not stopping in the rest position). That *is* an increase.
Surely this will work. If someone sensibly does pushups regularly, they will be able to do more. This is common sense. I must still just be in the "beginning phase" of it or something. Surely it will pick up off of the ground and get going at some point.
Surely this will work. If someone sensibly does pushups regularly, they will be able to do more. This is common sense. I must still just be in the "beginning phase" of it or something. Surely it will pick up off of the ground and get going at some point.
Slow and steady is the way to increase strength (and thus repetitions) - there is no quick and easy method to increasing strength; like losing weight, you have to start out slowly, then gain momentum until you reach a plateau... then the cycle will repeat. You'll get there in time - but if you push too hard you'll just hurt yourself, and it'll take longer.
No, they don't—unless you augment your own upper body weight by adding a `passenger' of respectable weight, or (something I used to do for fun), with a couple of wheels sitting on your back, kept in place by the friendly gym staff while you do your pushups.
Think of a pushup as a full-range upside-down bench press using your own (or augmented) upper body weight. Then yes, if you use additional weight that adds up to a significant increase over your own body weight (that extra 90lbs, for example), you will be getting a major increase in your workout.
But look, there's a point here that I think needs to be addressed, and it may not be a popular one in the context of this thread involving a challenge predicated on a `proper military' form of the pushup. Think of it this way...
• Assume that the purpose of an upper body workout is to increase total upper body strength (not necessarily true, but a reasonable starting point, no?)
• Consider the well-documented fact of muscle physiology that the body will increase muscle mass only in response to serious discomfort and limitation of capability when all available strength resources are being utilized (i.e., if you've got something left in reserve, then no matter how much effort you expend, you will not experience hypertrophy; see Sisco and Little's books for the literature on the exercise physiology experiments that document this point).
• Consider also the fact that since a full range rep, such as a `proper military pushup' demands, takes you into leverage ranges which force you to max out on weights that are less than you can lift if you restrict your workout to your biomechanically optimal range (in a bench, say, the top 3 or 4 inches of your benching range), so that you are not lifting the maximum weight that your fully recruited neuromuscular resources would allow you to lift, you wind up gaining no additional lean muscle mass from such reps (again, Sisco and Little cite evidence to show that the body will simply `pull the plug' on a weight that cannot be lifted do to excessive `mechanical disadvantage', as the engineers would say, even if this weight is far within your abilities if you can access it in a range of motion which gives you optimal leverage).
• It follows that doing `proper' pushup reps (therefore full range reps) will not allow you to augment your normal pushup weight nearly as much as a restricted range pushup (i.e., you will not be able to add as much weight to your back, by balance wheels or having cooperative assistants sitting on your back, as you would doing only the top 3 inches or so of the pushup rep), and therefore—this is the payoff—doing such pushups, while it may provide a usefule measure of training success, is not an efficiet training method.
• Consider the well-documented fact of muscle physiology that the body will increase muscle mass only in response to serious discomfort and limitation of capability when all available strength resources are being utilized (i.e., if you've got something left in reserve, then no matter how much effort you expend, you will not experience hypertrophy; see Sisco and Little's books for the literature on the exercise physiology experiments that document this point).
• Consider also the fact that since a full range rep, such as a `proper military pushup' demands, takes you into leverage ranges which force you to max out on weights that are less than you can lift if you restrict your workout to your biomechanically optimal range (in a bench, say, the top 3 or 4 inches of your benching range), so that you are not lifting the maximum weight that your fully recruited neuromuscular resources would allow you to lift, you wind up gaining no additional lean muscle mass from such reps (again, Sisco and Little cite evidence to show that the body will simply `pull the plug' on a weight that cannot be lifted do to excessive `mechanical disadvantage', as the engineers would say, even if this weight is far within your abilities if you can access it in a range of motion which gives you optimal leverage).
• It follows that doing `proper' pushup reps (therefore full range reps) will not allow you to augment your normal pushup weight nearly as much as a restricted range pushup (i.e., you will not be able to add as much weight to your back, by balance wheels or having cooperative assistants sitting on your back, as you would doing only the top 3 inches or so of the pushup rep), and therefore—this is the payoff—doing such pushups, while it may provide a usefule measure of training success, is not an efficiet training method.
Now, if it's just a matter of putting unaugmented upper body weight through its paces, none of this is an issue; right now, I can do 100 full range pushups in less than 2 minutes, but doing that does me little actual good, because it doesn't increase my lean muscle mass, which is what I'm always primarily interested in. In other words, my own body weight isn't enough to challenge my physiology to add more muscle, period. You might say, yes, that's all very well for you, but what about people who can't shift their own body weight over a full rep range that many times in that time frame? And my response would be, there's a much faster way to do it. Do limited range reps in a power rack with 50–100 more than your body weight for six weeks, and it's very likely that at the end of that time, you'll be able to do 100 full-range reps at your own body weight with relative ease. Definitely by Christmas.
I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, really; I think setting this kind of goal for onesself is a great thing, in fact, is the only way forward—the secret of life, as we get older, is, unfortunately, march or die. We have to keep annexing new ground, because our biology is trying to get us to shut down after our mid-thirties, and the only way we can fight that is very aggressively, by taking on projects such as this. I just think that the value of the 100-pushup test is as a benchmark, rather than as a training regime. For the latter, there are vastly more effective approaches, though, as I say, they take you into the... um, discomfort zone... more than you probably want to be there. But the good side is, over time, you find your tolerance for that kind of discomfort increases somewhat, enough to keep you in the game.
You can't really overtrain the pecs with pushups. Overtraining is a very specific thing; and on the whole, overtraining is overworked as a hazard. The deal on overtraining is, it consists of taxing your resources to the point where you are running a constant deficit, without ever giving your system a chance to recover physiologically. Very few people do this, or are capable of sustaining the discomfort level necessary to do this. I'm a bit of a fanatic about high-intensity training, yet I can safely say that in the eleven or so years I've been running intervals and doing various H.I.T. weightlifting routines, I've never once been in an overtraining mode. The thing is, you can't overtrain for muscle growth by doing things that implicate only endurance—and if you train weights properly, your pushups will be an endurance exercise for your pecs, not a strength exercise. So don't worry about overtraining. If you do pushups twice a week for extended numbers, you should be fine.
Well, that's probably true, but the point is, if you're doing a heavy free weight routine for pecs, you simply deplete your available strength resources by doing pushups, resources you need for your proper chest workout. Definitely you can tire yourself out doing pushups, but really your pectoral muscle growth will come from your free weight barbell bench press exercise at greater than your body weight. So it makes sense to hold off on the pushups while you're doing the free weights, simply so you don't tire yourself out. The point is, in line with what I was saying before, overtraining would involve your doing your high intensity routine sooner than would allow full recovery; this will put you in a kind of `negative numbers' in training which is a lot nastier than simply being overfatigued. Full recovery is essential before muscle group—`compensation' in weight-training jargon—takes place.
But there's no harm in every so often trying to knock out a set of 100 or so pushups just to see how you're getting on. If you can do limited range benches at 50 lbs or more above your body weight, you're strong enough that a few pushups isn't going to seriously compromise your strength utilization.
I think 100 continuous pushups is a good check of your progress—a benchmark, as I say. But for long term, serious gains, don't overlook the advantages that that power rack in the corner of your gym can give you (or the dipping stand, where you can do short-range, heavily weighted dips safely...)
meth18au
Blue Belt
First of all, thankyou for the time you took to give such a detailed response. It is a pleasure, as always, to read your information- especially in regards to weight training! An area I too am extremely fond of!!!
That's good to know. I do as many a 200-500 per day, and I do this 4-5 times per week. On top of my 1x Chest workout with weights every week. It is something that I have always stressed about- hindering the gains I would make from my weight routine through all the pushups I have to do in class!!!
I do understand it can tax me for my weight session. Sometimes my chest routine is on Wednesday. And I would have done between 200-500 pushups in class on both Monday and Tuesday. I just can't push out my 100kg bench presses after such intensive pushup routines. However on a 'fresher' day I can easily push out 100kg for 3 sets of 6 reps with a spotter!!!
I definitely wouldn't use pushups to gain muscle. I just feel like being in on the challenge of doing 100 straight!!!! I trust my bench and dumbbells too much!!! I will have to give the short range reps a go on bench press and dips though. I can't say I've ever worked with partial ranges on chest routines. What range should I be working in to get maximum gains from this sort of training?
That's good to know. I do as many a 200-500 per day, and I do this 4-5 times per week. On top of my 1x Chest workout with weights every week. It is something that I have always stressed about- hindering the gains I would make from my weight routine through all the pushups I have to do in class!!!
I do understand it can tax me for my weight session. Sometimes my chest routine is on Wednesday. And I would have done between 200-500 pushups in class on both Monday and Tuesday. I just can't push out my 100kg bench presses after such intensive pushup routines. However on a 'fresher' day I can easily push out 100kg for 3 sets of 6 reps with a spotter!!!
I definitely wouldn't use pushups to gain muscle. I just feel like being in on the challenge of doing 100 straight!!!! I trust my bench and dumbbells too much!!!
I will have to give the short range reps a go on bench press and dips though. I can't say I've ever worked with partial ranges on chest routines. What range should I be working in to get maximum gains from this sort of training?
I just wanted to get this reply out to this particular part of your post, meth18au, before work or some other interruption comes along... will post more in response to your previous note later on.
Sure, and that's exactly right—it really is a measure of your increase in strength: the more effective your free weight workouts, the better your pushup numbers will be.
Well, this is how I would approach it. Get in a power rack, set the protection bars at a height about three inches below the very top of your range, set the pins holding the barbell the lowest height above the bars you can (having the pins sitting right on the bars is sometimes best; it depends on the design of the power rack), put two 45lb wheels on each side, and lift the resulting 135lbs in that strongest-range distance. Add another 25lbs to each side and try running through maybe 20 reps, seeing how it feels. If you don't find that too taxing, replace the 25lb plates with 30lb plates and see how it goes, and so on. Eventually, you'll get to a weight which, even in your strongest range, you can only do about 20 of.
Now take that weight and remove 10lbs from each side. The result will be a bit less weight, but you'll be able to shift a good deal more total weight in a given time period than if you'd stuck with the maximum weight you were capable of. This is where the Sisco/Little version of high intensity training differs from Mike Mentzer's approach; Mentzer would have told you to go with the absolute maximum and to try for one rep more than you were ready to admit failure at. He had this idea that it was that one, last magical rep which issued the call, so to speak, that finally triggered new muscle synthesis in the body. Sisco and Little disagreed that that was a valid model (and Mentzer, though he used all kinds of analogies and metaphors to illustrate his side of the story, never really appealed to any empirical data to support his `tipping point' hypothesis about muscle growth; for someone who was so abrasively insistent that everyone else in the bodybuilding world was fundamentally irrational and unscientific in their thinking, he fell pretty readily into to the `too good to be false' trap of falling in love with his own preconceptions). They argued that the right way to induce hypertrophy was to present the body's sensors with evidence of a significant increase in average stress and discomfort, which over time (just as a callous forms in respense to an increase in average irritation at a particular point on the skin) will yield an average increase in the body's investment of resources in muscle tissue. Over several training sessions where you basically use up your reserves and try to push beyond them, the message gets through and your body does what it would really rather not do: it synthesizes new muscle tissue. It would much rather store the same nutrients as fat: muscle synthesis is a tiring costly business in terms of the body's biochemical economy, and our evolutionary history makes us much prefer storing nutrients as energy for a rainy day, of which there used to be plenty in the pre-agricultural era. But if you can deplete your explosive strength resources effectively over a forty minute period, say, every couple of weeks to start with, the lesser of two evils turns out to be to provide you with enough new muscle to minimize the physical stress of lifting iron.
It's for similar reasons that interval training is such an effective technique for improving cardiovascular fitness and depleting fat stores. The two high intensity regimes go well together, as long as you allow sufficient recovery time, and that's the key. Trying to do more than one high-intensity iron workout per week, or more than two aerobic interval workouts a week, definitely will overtrain you, and that's not fun in the least; it does all sorts of nasty things like compromise your immune response.
So that's why, on this approach anyway, you don't want to go to absolutely maximum weight—because you can actually shift more weight in the same unit of time using slightly less than your max, and that's what the body registers. When you find yourself able to increase your total reps at that weight in the same time, add another 5 or 10 lbs to the bar and try to equal your numbers from the last workout you did in the same time frame. And so on. If you give yourself the necessary recovery time, you'll find that you can pretty reliably add 5lbs every workout and get at least as good numbers in as you did the time before.
Then, when you decide to knock out a few pushups to see how you're progressing, you will be able to seriously impress yourself (plus any friends who might be watching, of course :wink1!
Sure, and that's exactly right—it really is a measure of your increase in strength: the more effective your free weight workouts, the better your pushup numbers will be.
I trust my bench and dumbbells too much!!!
Well, this is how I would approach it. Get in a power rack, set the protection bars at a height about three inches below the very top of your range, set the pins holding the barbell the lowest height above the bars you can (having the pins sitting right on the bars is sometimes best; it depends on the design of the power rack), put two 45lb wheels on each side, and lift the resulting 135lbs in that strongest-range distance. Add another 25lbs to each side and try running through maybe 20 reps, seeing how it feels. If you don't find that too taxing, replace the 25lb plates with 30lb plates and see how it goes, and so on. Eventually, you'll get to a weight which, even in your strongest range, you can only do about 20 of.
Now take that weight and remove 10lbs from each side. The result will be a bit less weight, but you'll be able to shift a good deal more total weight in a given time period than if you'd stuck with the maximum weight you were capable of. This is where the Sisco/Little version of high intensity training differs from Mike Mentzer's approach; Mentzer would have told you to go with the absolute maximum and to try for one rep more than you were ready to admit failure at. He had this idea that it was that one, last magical rep which issued the call, so to speak, that finally triggered new muscle synthesis in the body. Sisco and Little disagreed that that was a valid model (and Mentzer, though he used all kinds of analogies and metaphors to illustrate his side of the story, never really appealed to any empirical data to support his `tipping point' hypothesis about muscle growth; for someone who was so abrasively insistent that everyone else in the bodybuilding world was fundamentally irrational and unscientific in their thinking, he fell pretty readily into to the `too good to be false' trap of falling in love with his own preconceptions). They argued that the right way to induce hypertrophy was to present the body's sensors with evidence of a significant increase in average stress and discomfort, which over time (just as a callous forms in respense to an increase in average irritation at a particular point on the skin) will yield an average increase in the body's investment of resources in muscle tissue. Over several training sessions where you basically use up your reserves and try to push beyond them, the message gets through and your body does what it would really rather not do: it synthesizes new muscle tissue. It would much rather store the same nutrients as fat: muscle synthesis is a tiring costly business in terms of the body's biochemical economy, and our evolutionary history makes us much prefer storing nutrients as energy for a rainy day, of which there used to be plenty in the pre-agricultural era. But if you can deplete your explosive strength resources effectively over a forty minute period, say, every couple of weeks to start with, the lesser of two evils turns out to be to provide you with enough new muscle to minimize the physical stress of lifting iron.
It's for similar reasons that interval training is such an effective technique for improving cardiovascular fitness and depleting fat stores. The two high intensity regimes go well together, as long as you allow sufficient recovery time, and that's the key. Trying to do more than one high-intensity iron workout per week, or more than two aerobic interval workouts a week, definitely will overtrain you, and that's not fun in the least; it does all sorts of nasty things like compromise your immune response.
So that's why, on this approach anyway, you don't want to go to absolutely maximum weight—because you can actually shift more weight in the same unit of time using slightly less than your max, and that's what the body registers. When you find yourself able to increase your total reps at that weight in the same time, add another 5 or 10 lbs to the bar and try to equal your numbers from the last workout you did in the same time frame. And so on. If you give yourself the necessary recovery time, you'll find that you can pretty reliably add 5lbs every workout and get at least as good numbers in as you did the time before.
Then, when you decide to knock out a few pushups to see how you're progressing, you will be able to seriously impress yourself (plus any friends who might be watching, of course :wink1
!One note... with regard to pushups versus strength.
I agree with Exile on this: Body weight exercises will never increase your strength beyond a certain point limited by your body weight. I don't care if you can do a set of 1200 pushups... your muscles won't be able to lift more than some magic percentage over your body weight. For the sake of argument... let's just say 30%, with no data to back that random selection up. But -- your endurance in moving that weight is going to be vastly superior to a bench press champion who does 230% of his bodyweight.
I used to train occasionally with a guy who did something like 1000 pushups a day. He was wiry, pretty strong, and damn near inexhaustible. I'm not wiry... but in raw ability to move crap, I had him beat. But he could wear me out easily...
The advantage of reasonably large sets (30 to 50 maybe) of pushups for training is building endurance, not strength. For me, the best approach is a compromise. I'm currently working a weight circuit that includes dumbbell bench press; I'm only lifting 70 lb dumbbells... but I'm doing sets to exhaustion (currently, 17 for the first cycle, and around 10 for the second). I do pushups on off days, as the mood strikes. It's working for my goals. I don't want to be bigger, and I'm respectably strong (last I checked, I could still bench my bodyweight at least once).
Look at your goals, and tailor your training to fit them.
I agree with Exile on this: Body weight exercises will never increase your strength beyond a certain point limited by your body weight. I don't care if you can do a set of 1200 pushups... your muscles won't be able to lift more than some magic percentage over your body weight. For the sake of argument... let's just say 30%, with no data to back that random selection up. But -- your endurance in moving that weight is going to be vastly superior to a bench press champion who does 230% of his bodyweight.
I used to train occasionally with a guy who did something like 1000 pushups a day. He was wiry, pretty strong, and damn near inexhaustible. I'm not wiry... but in raw ability to move crap, I had him beat. But he could wear me out easily...
The advantage of reasonably large sets (30 to 50 maybe) of pushups for training is building endurance, not strength. For me, the best approach is a compromise. I'm currently working a weight circuit that includes dumbbell bench press; I'm only lifting 70 lb dumbbells... but I'm doing sets to exhaustion (currently, 17 for the first cycle, and around 10 for the second). I do pushups on off days, as the mood strikes. It's working for my goals. I don't want to be bigger, and I'm respectably strong (last I checked, I could still bench my bodyweight at least once).
Look at your goals, and tailor your training to fit them.
Exactly. A powerlifter is not gonna make the Boston Marathon in anywhere near the same time a dedicated, specifically-trained runner is. And that runner would crumble to dust if he/she were to try to crawl under that half a ton of iron that the powerlifter plays with.
Exile has given several incredibly intelligent explanations concerning weight training( in my younger days when I cared about getting bigger i tried the very same Power Factor workout he's referring to--I got big, and relative to my height aqnd frame, I'm STILL big).
My goals have changed to the point I'm more interested now in "leaning up" what mass I DO have, and losing the excess weight, and building endurance rather than pure raw strength( I figure, from a defensive standpoint, I can do wahtever the hell I need to to someone if I can outlast them to begin with).
I'm also not 19 anymore, and since I been out of a routine so long I figure sticking to bodyweight will reduce risk of injury or REinjury of old mistakes( when I was young and stupid, I did as many young and stupid boys/men do, and got sucked into the trap of wanting to go heavier too soon just for the sake of lifting heavier weights, and my shoulders still click, though there's been no pain in 10 years).I'm just glad I stopped on that path before I did real, irreversible damage.
At least with calisthenics the movements can be made a little more directly related to martial art movement( your creativity's the only limit) And from a purely personal point of view I find that direct calisthenic movement keeps me more involved in the moment( ie, I'm not thinking about what I'm gonna do when I get home like I sometimes did with weights).
I'm not against weight training, but don't think I'm quite in the right place yet to bring it back, and not sure it should be the top rung in the ladder for my fitness goals as they are right now, is all.
Exile has given several incredibly intelligent explanations concerning weight training( in my younger days when I cared about getting bigger i tried the very same Power Factor workout he's referring to--I got big, and relative to my height aqnd frame, I'm STILL big).
My goals have changed to the point I'm more interested now in "leaning up" what mass I DO have, and losing the excess weight, and building endurance rather than pure raw strength( I figure, from a defensive standpoint, I can do wahtever the hell I need to to someone if I can outlast them to begin with).
I'm also not 19 anymore, and since I been out of a routine so long I figure sticking to bodyweight will reduce risk of injury or REinjury of old mistakes( when I was young and stupid, I did as many young and stupid boys/men do, and got sucked into the trap of wanting to go heavier too soon just for the sake of lifting heavier weights, and my shoulders still click, though there's been no pain in 10 years).I'm just glad I stopped on that path before I did real, irreversible damage.
At least with calisthenics the movements can be made a little more directly related to martial art movement( your creativity's the only limit) And from a purely personal point of view I find that direct calisthenic movement keeps me more involved in the moment( ie, I'm not thinking about what I'm gonna do when I get home like I sometimes did with weights).
I'm not against weight training, but don't think I'm quite in the right place yet to bring it back, and not sure it should be the top rung in the ladder for my fitness goals as they are right now, is all.
jks and Andy, really good posts!!!
(jks, IOU rep; you're still on my stack, so...) I think it's very important to remember that in the end, no two people's weight-training programs are going to look the same, nor should they; and at different times in one's life, one's program is going to differ from others. When we're younger, a lot of us (us guys, anyway!) just want to look big and powerful. When we get a bit older, though, our focus often shifts to functional strength; if we're adults, we recognize that we don't need to look like Ahhhhnold in his prime to be healthy, fit specimens of humanity, but we do need specific kinds of strength and fitness, and we train for that.
Here's an example: legs. Powerful quads have been a bodybuilder's fantasy from early days, and certain bodybuilders, like Tom Platz and the late Paul de Mayo had massive quads thicker than many grown men's midsections. But alas, those guys would have been at a complete loss if you asked them to do a slow midlevel rear-leg side kick in perfect form and freeze it at maximum extension for ten seconds. The reason is that the muscles involved in that particular action aren't the quads; they're the hip flexors—and I know of no standard bodybuilding exercise aimed at the hip flexors, which makes sense, after all, because the judges in bodybuilding contests can't see these (relatively small) muscles, no matter how much you've worked on them. So while standard leg exercises are good in general (because squats and leg presses contribute to overall strength), if you want to develop strength for fast, powerful kicks as offensive weapons, the best exercise you can do is not a weightlifter's or bodybuilder's exercise but a specifically martial artist's exercise: leg raises (stick one leg out as close to parallel to the ground as possible and freeze it there, then the other one), slow, powerful kicks held in the extended position at at least hip height, and one or two others ... then the same again but with extra weighting maybe by using 10 or 20 lb ankle weights. I'd bet not one lifter in ten thousand exercises like that ... but for the likes of us, that kind of leg workout will yield results much more satisfying than the standard lifter's leg half-ton leg press and 495 lb squat. I'm not knocking the latter, btw, don't get me wrong—these kinds of exercises will greatly enhance your overall body strength; but as a MAist you need weight work that is specifically geared to the demands of your particular craft.
Another example: interval training. It's extra-efficient for cardio, but there's a more specific reason why MAists need to spend a bit of time doing this kind of exercise: very few MA training sessions involve continuous expenditure of energy, right? From your own experience, isn't is pretty obvious that what happens is, you spend a certain amount of time in listening, or in slow-mo rehersal of certain moves, or in low intensity demonstration of particular techs, alternating with very demanding, even exhausting sparring/repetitive high kicking, hard punching/bag work/etc.?? MA training sessions alternate low and very high intensity training, and that's exactly, precisely what interval training trains: an aerobic capacity which has the `legs' to switch gears from high to low back to high intensity.
So for sheer upper body strength, there are certain exercises. And for specifically MA-related requirements, there are certain exercises. And the two aren't mutually exclusive in the least, but you have to figure out for yourself—based on your body type, MA requirements (as a TKDist, I'm inclined to train high, accurate kicks even though I wouldn't appeal to these in a self-defense situation), age, and medical history—just what mix of the two will give you the best results....
(jks, IOU rep; you're still on my stack, so...) I think it's very important to remember that in the end, no two people's weight-training programs are going to look the same, nor should they; and at different times in one's life, one's program is going to differ from others. When we're younger, a lot of us (us guys, anyway!) just want to look big and powerful. When we get a bit older, though, our focus often shifts to functional strength; if we're adults, we recognize that we don't need to look like Ahhhhnold in his prime to be healthy, fit specimens of humanity, but we do need specific kinds of strength and fitness, and we train for that.
Here's an example: legs. Powerful quads have been a bodybuilder's fantasy from early days, and certain bodybuilders, like Tom Platz and the late Paul de Mayo had massive quads thicker than many grown men's midsections. But alas, those guys would have been at a complete loss if you asked them to do a slow midlevel rear-leg side kick in perfect form and freeze it at maximum extension for ten seconds. The reason is that the muscles involved in that particular action aren't the quads; they're the hip flexors—and I know of no standard bodybuilding exercise aimed at the hip flexors, which makes sense, after all, because the judges in bodybuilding contests can't see these (relatively small) muscles, no matter how much you've worked on them. So while standard leg exercises are good in general (because squats and leg presses contribute to overall strength), if you want to develop strength for fast, powerful kicks as offensive weapons, the best exercise you can do is not a weightlifter's or bodybuilder's exercise but a specifically martial artist's exercise: leg raises (stick one leg out as close to parallel to the ground as possible and freeze it there, then the other one), slow, powerful kicks held in the extended position at at least hip height, and one or two others ... then the same again but with extra weighting maybe by using 10 or 20 lb ankle weights. I'd bet not one lifter in ten thousand exercises like that ... but for the likes of us, that kind of leg workout will yield results much more satisfying than the standard lifter's leg half-ton leg press and 495 lb squat. I'm not knocking the latter, btw, don't get me wrong—these kinds of exercises will greatly enhance your overall body strength; but as a MAist you need weight work that is specifically geared to the demands of your particular craft.
Another example: interval training. It's extra-efficient for cardio, but there's a more specific reason why MAists need to spend a bit of time doing this kind of exercise: very few MA training sessions involve continuous expenditure of energy, right? From your own experience, isn't is pretty obvious that what happens is, you spend a certain amount of time in listening, or in slow-mo rehersal of certain moves, or in low intensity demonstration of particular techs, alternating with very demanding, even exhausting sparring/repetitive high kicking, hard punching/bag work/etc.?? MA training sessions alternate low and very high intensity training, and that's exactly, precisely what interval training trains: an aerobic capacity which has the `legs' to switch gears from high to low back to high intensity.
So for sheer upper body strength, there are certain exercises. And for specifically MA-related requirements, there are certain exercises. And the two aren't mutually exclusive in the least, but you have to figure out for yourself—based on your body type, MA requirements (as a TKDist, I'm inclined to train high, accurate kicks even though I wouldn't appeal to these in a self-defense situation), age, and medical history—just what mix of the two will give you the best results....
meth18au
Blue Belt
Then, when you decide to knock out a few pushups to see how you're progressing, you will be able to seriously impress yourself (plus any friends who might be watching, of course :wink1
Thankyou for another well thought out, and thought provoking post Exile!!!
I will have to apply these principles to my weight training from now on. I'm going to be trying to fit in 2x weight sessions a week (especially leading up to the hot West Australian summer!!!). I think I'm going to give this sort of training a go. Maybe one session a week, a compound full body workout. And my second one will be based around this sort of high intensity, limited range training. Would you happen to be able to suggest a certain program based around this training to begin with? I try spend around 45 mins lifting when I go to do a weight session.
Andy Moynihan said:
Don't we all, as young males go down this path!!! I used to do really heavy deadlifts. Got my max up to 120kg for 10 reps. One day, twinge in my back- out of training for a week and a half. Lucky to have had no real bad damage, but it scared the **** out of me!!! Now I stick to 60kg-80kg range. And I wouldn't say my results have overly suffered because of it!!!
OP
OP
newGuy12
Master of Arts
Yes, thank you to exile, you are giving us the good information!
Okay, I made a landmark today. I am doing these exercises on Monday and Thursday because that is when the Teacher has classes. We do 5 sets of 20 pushups in class. Now, because I could never do 20 in a set, I was always just simply maxing out, right? So, that is equivalent (at least) to the workout in the first post. No problem.
Now, tonight, I am glad to say that I got 20. No joking, BAM, nailed them.
I could have done more, but I was just cool and quit, because, the exercise we did is specified to be 20 pushups, and I know how to follow directions.
I also did 20 on the second set. I'm sure that the form was close enough, if not perfect. It was close enough for me. So, I am beginning to see improvement, which is good, because I was starting to be doubtful.
Now, I do the weight training on Saturday. So, I'll go in there, and the bench press is just ONE set of ~ 20, in the short range!!! Then, the same for pullups (I spent the money to go to the gym, I may as well do the pullups as well).
And, then the "knee therapy" ------> knee extensions and knee curls (or whatever they are called). But these of course are done very carefully, very mindfully. These are not for strength or to show off with.
So, that's a fact!!! Got to be careful not to get a big head, though. In the martial arts, somebody might just have to come around and show you what's up if you get too cocky, and I don't need that!!!!!!!!!
Regards,
Robert Witten
Okay, I made a landmark today. I am doing these exercises on Monday and Thursday because that is when the Teacher has classes. We do 5 sets of 20 pushups in class. Now, because I could never do 20 in a set, I was always just simply maxing out, right? So, that is equivalent (at least) to the workout in the first post. No problem.
Now, tonight, I am glad to say that I got 20. No joking, BAM, nailed them.
I could have done more, but I was just cool and quit, because, the exercise we did is specified to be 20 pushups, and I know how to follow directions.
I also did 20 on the second set. I'm sure that the form was close enough, if not perfect. It was close enough for me. So, I am beginning to see improvement, which is good, because I was starting to be doubtful.
Now, I do the weight training on Saturday. So, I'll go in there, and the bench press is just ONE set of ~ 20, in the short range!!! Then, the same for pullups (I spent the money to go to the gym, I may as well do the pullups as well).
And, then the "knee therapy" ------> knee extensions and knee curls (or whatever they are called). But these of course are done very carefully, very mindfully. These are not for strength or to show off with.
So, that's a fact!!! Got to be careful not to get a big head, though. In the martial arts, somebody might just have to come around and show you what's up if you get too cocky, and I don't need that!!!!!!!!!
Regards,
Robert Witten
rutherford
Master Black Belt
Have you ever met an Olympic Gymnast?
There are few stronger human beings.
Thing is, they don't do push-ups all day long. Once they master a skill, they sophisticate to more complex and challenging exercises.
Right, but here's where we need some actual data. I've read descriptions of gymnast's training routines and according to those accounts, a lot of them do pump iron in addition to their specialized train for events such as rings. Time under tension will definitely yield results up to a point. But what you would need to show about these gymnasts is that a continued use of strictly free bodyweight exercises led to actual new muscle growth in the absence of further overload.
The problem with muscularity is that it's hard to identify from casual inspection just what's going on. Two athletes can have equal muscle mass in relation to height—but one of them can look far stronger than the other because that muscle mass is a much greater percentage of total body weight. Fat obscures muscle, but so does retained water, which is why pro bodybuilders use hair-raisingly dangerous diuretics like thiazide and other stuff whose primary applications are usually veterinary
So even if you see an apparent increase in muscle size in the same athlete over a given period of time, you aren't necessarily seeing an increase in muscle mass, as vs. just muscularity (% of total body weight).What I'd like to see are some carefully controlled studies showing that gymnasts continue to add muscle tissue throughout their careers by doing nothing more than training for their particular specializations using only their own body weight for resistance. Without that kind of controlled experiment, it's not really possible to conclude much from the physiques of high-level gymnasts, beyond the fact that they do gain muscle mass up to a certain point through their training...
rutherford
Master Black Belt
The problem with muscularity is that it's hard to identify from casual inspection just what's going on. Two athletes can have equal muscle mass in relation to height—but one of them can look far stronger than the other because that muscle mass is a much greater percentage of total body weight. Fat obscures muscle, but so does retained water, which is why pro bodybuilders use hair-raisingly dangerous diuretics like thiazide and other stuff whose primary applications are usually veterinary
What I'd like to see are some carefully controlled studies showing that gymnasts continue to add muscle tissue throughout their careers by doing nothing more than training for their particular specializations using only their own body weight for resistance. Without that kind of controlled experiment, it's not really possible to conclude much from the physiques of high-level gymnasts, beyond the fact that they do gain muscle mass up to a certain point through their training...
Irrelevant. Placing physique first in your value hierarchy is exactly what leads to the abuse of health and functional attributes that you correctly point out are rampant in the sport of bodybuilding. Beyond certain levels, muscle mass has little actual relation to strength and hypertrophic gains can inhibit performance.
In all cases, it's important to clearly state the goal of your training and move towards that goal in the manner that is most efficient.
A certain kind of strength is required for gymnastics, and it's strength that can not be developed through lifting weights. You can bench press all you want, but you'll never develop a straddle planche push-up unless you specifically craft a fitness program with that goal in mind. (This is where I completely agree with jks9199).
There is no one tool that is right for every goal. The body can not differentiate between sources of resistance. It doesn't say, "Oh, this is a free weight on an olympic bar, I'll make gains for this but show me a sandbag and you'll get nothing." Instead, tools are chosen for the applicability to the development of desired attributes that lead to the accomplishment of specific goals.
I'm passing familiar with gymnastics training; I started to late to really accomplish anything, but I did do gymnastics for a couple of years (specializing in vault and parallel bars, for those who are curious).
Gymnasts are indeed strong -- and very adept at recruiting maximum muscle contribution to an effort. But I never said bodyweight exercises won't make you strong -- I simply said that there is a limit to the strength you can develop solely with body weight exercises. I even said I don't have any hard data on where that limit may be...
This discussion hasn't really addressed specifity, mostly because it's been off topic on a thread about pushups. But, it's pretty much a given that you must train with specificity to achieve specific results; you want to punch harder, you can do weights that build the muscles involved, you can stretch to improve flexibility -- but you MUST punch to punch harder. You want to run faster -- again, you can do all the supporting exercise you want, but you MUST run to run faster.
OP
OP
newGuy12
Master of Arts
I think that its worth remembering that for a true beginner, who does not do ANY exercise, whatever they choose to do to start has to be a step in the right direction, at least, even if its not optimal.
Now, regarding bodyweight exercises, that is convenient. You do not have to go to a gym, you can do them right now, if you have a few minutes, do a set of something, with a minimum (or no) equipment. Because of this, I don't think that bodyweight exercises should be pushed aside. You see, comparing a couch potatoe (one who does NO exercise) to anyone who does any kind of exercise shows a BIG difference.
I have found a website that talks only about these so called bodyweight exercises:
http://www.bodyweightculture.com/
Now, you have to register to really get access to the material, but that is what your secondary "junk" email address is for anyway, right?
You can also find videos that show some of these people doing their exercises such as this one:
http://www.gofish.com/player.gfp?gfid=30-1062886
Now, for a world class athlete, or someone who is adept at training of some kind, these may seem simple and childish, BUT, for the new people, they are very challenging.
You see, I am saying, the best way to train is the best way, like we have been discussing, BUT, if one cannot avail themselves of the best exercises (perhaps they cannot afford the money to join a gymnasium right now?), then --> the best way to exercise then is whatever one can and will do!!!
Now, regarding bodyweight exercises, that is convenient. You do not have to go to a gym, you can do them right now, if you have a few minutes, do a set of something, with a minimum (or no) equipment. Because of this, I don't think that bodyweight exercises should be pushed aside. You see, comparing a couch potatoe (one who does NO exercise) to anyone who does any kind of exercise shows a BIG difference.
I have found a website that talks only about these so called bodyweight exercises:
http://www.bodyweightculture.com/
Now, you have to register to really get access to the material, but that is what your secondary "junk" email address is for anyway, right?
You can also find videos that show some of these people doing their exercises such as this one:
http://www.gofish.com/player.gfp?gfid=30-1062886
Now, for a world class athlete, or someone who is adept at training of some kind, these may seem simple and childish, BUT, for the new people, they are very challenging.
You see, I am saying, the best way to train is the best way, like we have been discussing, BUT, if one cannot avail themselves of the best exercises (perhaps they cannot afford the money to join a gymnasium right now?), then --> the best way to exercise then is whatever one can and will do!!!
Similar threads
