100 pushups by Christmas

[newGuy12]

Then again, let's not forget about the extra gains that can be made when a personal trainer is available to "help you out"!!!

 

[exile]

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.

I'm not placing physique first in my value hierarchy. I'm simply trying to address your invocation of Olympic gymnasts—who are indeed very strong and very muscular—in connection with the previous discussion of whether continuous muscle growth, with attendant strength gains, is possible past a certain point using bodyweight resistance alone.

Beyond certain levels, muscle mass has little actual relation to strength and hypertrophic gains can inhibit performance.

I have yet to see a single piece of peer-reviewed documentation for the claim that muscle growth as a result of strictly drug-free resistance training can inhibit performance. What I have seen are numerous, well-designed studies confirming the increased speed of movement generated by larger muscles, since part of normal hypertrophy is progressively great synchronization of muscle activation by the neuromotor groups involved. More synchonization translates to faster response times. If you're referring to studies involving steroid-induced hypertrophy, that's completely different; in those cases, muscle growth forced beyond the natural limits imposed by skeletal structure, connective tissue cannot keep pace with the excessive development of muscle size through abuse of anabolic substances, and serious injuries will inevitably result (Dorian Yates' forced retirement as a result of repeated muscle/tendon tears off his arm bones are a glaring example).

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).

If you look back through this thread, you'll see that I made exactly this point several posts ago here in connnection with the role of hip flexors and their inaccessiblity to growth by standard weight-lifting exercises. Somehow the topic seems to have shifted from MAs to Olympic gymnasts, but clearly it's the same point, and holds for alpine skiing, fencing, tennis and any other athletic specialization.

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.[/QUOTE]

Once again, this repeats an earlier point that no one is arguing about. But the premise of the OP is that increases in `generalized' upper body strength have to be advantageous, whatever training-specific routines you also do to enhance particular muscle groups needed for the activities in question, as in the case of the workout possibilities for hip flexors I mentioned in my earlier post. I see no incompatibility between the two kinds of training goals. Interestingly enough, Bruce Lee, who was hardly unaware of the need for targetting training, also trained weights extensively and advocated their use on the grounds that, with equal skill levels, the stronger of two fighters has a probably decisive advantage. He did not say that weight training for strength is a substitute for development of specialized skills. The two are complementary. And I also noted earlier that MAists need to work out for themselves what the optimal mix of generalized and specific strength training is. But the point at issue was simply whether you can increase generalized muscle growth beyond a certain point based strictly on bodyweight resistance. If someone doesn't wish to go beyond that point, fine; I see no problem with that.

 

[rutherford]

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...

But the point at issue was simply whether you can increase generalized muscle growth beyond a certain point based strictly on bodyweight resistance. If someone doesn't wish to go beyond that point, fine; I see no problem with that.

You're both addressing the tangents, and ignoring the denial of your primary premise. That bodyweight resistance will at some unknown point cease to be effective is absurd.

It is absurd in the first place, because the body cannot know the difference. Resistance is resistance. The body adapts to stress when given adequate recovery and nutrition. Any stress.

It is also absurd, because you've failed to define "strong for what". When I bring up Gymnastics, it's only to give a specific example of skill-based strength that cannot be achieved through any weight training.

The belief that linear movements (weighted or unweighted) which attempt to isolate muscle groups could somehow lead to increased general physical preparation is outdated, based on a false model of human movement, and simply wrong.

 

[exile]

You're both addressing the tangents, and ignoring the denial of your primary premise. That bodyweight resistance will at some unknown point cease to be effective is absurd.

It is absurd in the first place, because the body cannot know the difference. Resistance is resistance. The body adapts to stress when given adequate recovery and nutrition. Any stress.

The body adapts to stress,yes. But if you do not increase the stress on the body, there will be no further adaptation.

If you've never lifted weights before, and you try curling a 20lb dumbbell, you will get hypertrophy of the biceps sufficient to enable you to curl that 20 lb dumbbell. And then, if you never increase the weight beyond that 20lbs, you will add no further muscle growth because the body has already adapted as much as it needs to. These results were established in the first half of the 20th century in the work of Mopurgo, Siebert & Pietow, and Roux-Lange, and have been corroborated repeatedly (see Sisco and Little's Power Factor Training for the full references, discussion of the experimental protocols, and further experimental corroboration). When the body has successfully adapted to a given stress, further adaptation to a higher level is only triggered by overload, i.e., increase in stress to a higher level. If you've developed 16" biceps by starting with a15" bicep and doing 20lb concentration curls, do you really think you are going to be able to reach 19" biceps by patiently doing curls with a 20lb weight for the next ten years? In the pre-steroid era, natural bodybuilders had already discovered that low intensity, high rep training led to unbreakable plateaus. That is typically where plateaus come from: not increasing the weight (or not allowing sufficient recovery from a previous workout, which in turn makes it impossible to lift added weight).

It is also absurd, because you've failed to define "strong for what". When I bring up Gymnastics, it's only to give a specific example of skill-based strength that cannot be achieved through any weight training.

No, Rutherford, you've got the thread topic wrong, I think. The thread topic is pushups—reread the OP—which yield increase general upper body strength. I introduced skill-based strength myself, as distinct from general upper body strength, as an aside, just a caution, in case someone new to weight training got the misimpression that bodybuilding exercises might yield skill-specific strength. You didn't introduce that caveat; I did, in the post I gave you a link to in my previous post. And now you're lecturing me about the need to distinguish skill-based from generalized explosive muscle strength?

The belief that linear movements (weighted or unweighted) which attempt to isolate muscle groups could somehow lead to increased general physical preparation is outdated, based on a false model of human movement, and simply wrong.

Rutherford, if you're going to get into a discussion of resistance training, then you better know the difference between isolation and compound exercises. And if you do know the difference, you know that bench presses (of which pushups are an inverted version), squats, and shoulder presses, the exercises I mentioned in my original posts, are all compound exercises that work, in the case of benches, the following: delts, lats, triceps and especially pectorals. So why are you trying to attribute to me, or jks, or anyone else a position about isolating exercises that no one has taken? And would you mind pointing out to us who with any authority in this area has ever claimed that isolating exercises can lead to `increased general physical preparation'. What is the purpose of these straw men?

I would suggest that you go back over the thread and read what people have actually said, and when, and in what context. You'll notice that (i) the thread topic is a compound exercise which is aimed at increasing general upper body strength; (ii) no one is claiming that resistance training with standard lifts targets specific MA skills; (iii) on the contrary, I stressed that one needs to do targeted strength routines specifically for MAs, well before you entered the thread; and that (iv) the only person who is throwing around terms like `irrelvant', `absurd' and the like to dismiss other people's proposals, suggestions and summaries of well-documented research in exercise physiology is you. And if your intent in doing that is to convince readers that the positions which you've misattributed to others are incorrect, I don't think you're going to get very far.

 

[rutherford]

Increased weight is only one way to increase stress.

A more complete list would include:

extended duration with more switches or rest pauses
shorter duration with less switches or rest pauses
lighter weight for extended duration
heavier weight for shorter duration
greater reps per minute (RPMs) at lighter weight
fewer RPMs at heavier weight
simpler complexity for greater RPMs
simpler complexity for heavier weight
simpler complexity for fewer switches or rest pauses
simpler complexity for extended duration
increased complexity at fewer RPM
increased complexity at lighter weight
increased complexity with more switches or rest pauses
increased complexity with shorter duration

So why are you trying to attribute to me, or jks, or anyone else a position about isolating exercises that no one has taken? And would you mind pointing out to us who with any authority in this area has ever claimed that isolating exercises can lead to `increased general physical preparation'. What is the purpose of these straw men?

I can see that I've been less than clear, and that we're talking past each other, no matter how many times you use my name.

You say that you don't place physique first in your value chain, but your last post is about increasing bicep size. Who cares about bicep size?

You say you're not in favor of isolation exercises, but your last post is about concentration curls.

And, I'm not here to convince anybody, or sell anybody anything.

 

[exile]

You say you're not in favor of isolation exercises, but your last post is about concentration curls.

One, you've totally ignored the particular point that my example raises. Two, using an example to establish a point is not the same as advocating the exercise used in that example, right? Or do you actually think that using exercise X as an example of a physiological (non)effect entails an endorsement of X?? You believe that using something as an illustration implies a recommendation of that thing for some specific purpose?

For those interested in some actual research supported both by experimental protocols and by muscle biopsy studies, note the following from Sisco & Little's Power Factor Training:

...as our bodies adapt toa certain level of resistance by developing larger and stronger muscles, the overload in our workouts must be increased if further growth is to be achieved. This cause-and-effect relationship has been labeled the progressive overload principle, which states that in order to grow progressively larger muscles, the skeletal muscles must be routinely subjected to ever-increasing demands... as far as building muscle mass is concerned, the sole objective is muscle fiber recruitment. The more muscle fibers recruited, the more activated; the more activated, the greater the growth stimulation. It therefore stands to reason that the more muscle fibers called into play or made to contract against resistance, the more muscle fibers will be stimulated to hypertrophy, or grow larger.

It was demonstrated clinically in 1973 that, at light loads, slow twitch fibers contract and are capable of sustaining repeated contractions at this relatively low level of intensity. Since these fibers are weaker, they're not suited to a higher intensity of effort or overload. If a greater load is imposed upon the muscle, a progressive recruitment of larger and stronger (fast-twitch) muscle fibers occurs. Thus, when the load increases from light to heavy, there is a progressive increase in the number of muscle fibers involved in the contraction. In essence, light loads, regardless of how many sets and reps you perform with them, recruit primarily slo-twitch muscle fibers, which have the lowest capacity to increase in size. Heavier loads recruit fast-twitch fibers in addition to the slow-twitch fibers already activated.
​

(Power Factor Training, pp. 53-54). The work Sisco and Little are invoking here appeared in the severely peer-reviewed Journal of Physiology in 1973 as a pair of papers by H.S. Milner-Brown et al., and in the experimental results reported by D.H. Clarke, `Adaptations in strength and muscular endurance resulting from exercise' in another premier refereed journal of record, Exercise & Sports Sciences Review 1.73–102, also published in 1973. These watershed results have been subsequently confirmed repeatedly in experimental exercise physiology. Forced contraction of fast twitch fibers yields hypertrophy; forced contraction of slow twitch muscles yields increased endurance at a given level of strength, but only marginal muscle growth (the musculature of sprinters vs. marathoners has been a fertile research area for exploration of this approach in cardio-intensive exercise, and the results are exactly the same: sprinting yields gains in musculature because it relies almost exclusively on fast twitch muscle fibers; marathoners rely primarily on slow-twitch fibers. Contemporary photos from the 30s and 40s indicate that sprinters in the pre-steroidal era were noticeably more powerfully built than marathoners, even those who had started off with average builds, and this is why).

The bottom line: once you reach a certain point, you can only increase skeletal muscle volume non-chemically by increasing the overload that that muscle must resist. Repetition at the same level that the body has already adapted to will call upon muscle fiber bundles that do not respond to forced contraction by increasing in size.

For the record, those of you who've been following this thread from the beginning will note that I early on pointed out the need for specific skill-targeted exercises for MAs, and cautioned that even the strongest bodybuilders and weightlifters will not be able to carry out certain techniques in the MAs even a little bit unless they specifically train for strength in those techniques. I gave examples. I suggested that a mix of general large-muscle strength exercises and skill-targeted MA exercises was probably the best bet for the like of us, and just what the mix was was something individual, to be determined by your own experience.

So now maybe we can proceed with the thread topic: the best ways to increase your pushup numbers and how everyone is doing in their respective quests?

 

[newGuy12]

Yes, we are getting on with it. And, I for one, will not be taking any manner of steroids or any other such supplement. No. It will be all natural exercise.

 

[exile]

Yes, we are getting on with it. And, I for one, will not be taking any manner of steroids or any other such supplement. No. It will be all natural exercise.

Very smart, nG (not that I ever doubted you for a second!) The number of suspicious deaths in bodybuilding continues to rise, and there are plenty of documented near-catastrophes that are only generally known in the bodybuilding world. One consummate irony—or maybe not irony so much as poetic justice—the man who brought steroids to the American scene in the 1950s, John Ziegler, MD (???!!!) probably died from steroid abuse himself; you might find the article on his life and career here a useful cautionary tale...

 

[Andy Moynihan]

And a week later that's now 42.

 

[newGuy12]

Good show, Andy Moynihan! Going from 29 to 41 is a good increase, I'd say.

I did 21 tonight just before class. That's just one more than the previous measure, but its still an increase. The increase before that (to 20) was a hallmark.

I wish to do at least 25 Thursday when I max out again. Hehe, 30 would be better of course.

Maybe if I keep doing the weights on Saturdays, I can get to where I can sit in seiza without my knee popping about. Who knows? There is an Aikido club that uses the same facilities that I practice Kempo at now. A little "swirling motion" would be nice, now, wouldn't it???

 

[Doc_Jude]

Oh, my! No joke?

There is a gymnasium right down the street from me, and the people who run it don't make you sign a contract. You can even come in and pay for one single visit if you wish, and I think its $25 / month (or less / month if you do prepay for a longer time). Oh, this is something.

I can also use the pull-down pulley machine (I cannot do a single pull-up now, and this will be a "baby step" toward that goal). A Marine friend of mine told me that I should do pullups as well as pushups.

Also, I have a somewhat chronic knee condition that a friend who is a physical therapist told me could be helped by using the leg machines (very carefully, very slowly).

Man, thank you for the tip, exile! Whew! Tomorrow is Saturday, the perfect day for the "one day per week" power-rack exercise!




High Regards,

Robert

Dips will help you pushup goal more than pull-ups.

 

[still learning]

Hello, Just about everyone in ever country....knows push-ups is a good excercise....NO equitment is need except for a floor of some kind, Also it is NOT fair to do it standing up?

The more you do? ....the stronger you get...simple! (no technical data is needed). One of the few excerises that gets results?

One can do this on their backs? ...just have a pipe 2-3 feet off the ground and hands on bar,heels on the ground...PULL-UP....Pull-ups' instead of push-ups?

This is a flavoriate one too....prefer a bench or chair....heels on the ground, butt off the floor and hands on the edge of bench/chair and squat arms down and up...great for triceps!

Aloha ( 100 push-ups by christmas) ...um 2014?

 

[exile]

The more you do? ....the stronger you get...simple! (no technical data is needed).

Doing more pushups will not give you more explosive strength, for the reasons I and others have posted above. Once you've adapted to a given performance burden (fixed, in this case, by your body weight), you are working slow-twitch, not fast-twitch muscles; the former do not contribute to strength; they are the fiber-groups which are responsible for increasing endurance, which is why (i) running marathon-type lengths will not increase your leg strength, but will allow you to continue running for longer periods of time at a stretch and (ii) people with a much great proportion of slow-twitch muscles than fast-twitch muscles have a distinct advantage in marathon running, but tend to be hopeless in sprints.

And what is technical data not needed for??

One can do this on their backs? ...just have a pipe 2-3 feet off the ground and hands on bar,heels on the ground...PULL-UP....Pull-ups' instead of push-ups?

They train entirely different muscle groups. Pushups are pec/delt/triceps stressors (as they should be, being a low-key inverted bench-press) while pullups train lats/biceps. I'm not saying one is better than the other, and for major strength gains I'd prefer free-weight benches and weighted dips for the first and weighted chins for the second... just bear in mind that they are training two quite different upper body muscle groups.

 

[newGuy12]

I hope that everyone realizes that THE GAUNTLET HAS BEEN THROWN DOWN!

It still "counts" if you go to the rest position (the authorized rest position) to take a break. You are still doing the 100 pushups in one lick. You see, I am just maxing out and then stopping. When it is "showtime", you take the rest position when you max, when you fail, and then, resume, and you keep pumping them out.

We still have Oct and Nov. The balance of December too!

Now listen! There are challenges that humans have. Some are self imposed. But, there are conflicts in life. Epic battles of Good, and Evil. The Rebel Forces vs the Empire.

Will anyone pick up the gauntlet and rise to the occasion?

Oh, yes.

Some members of the martialtalk board will. And they will succeed. No time for negative talk, or negative thinking. Who Dares Wins. Period.

Now, I WILL report to you that I have done 25 in one lick Thursday. I say to you now, or may I lose face in front of you!

I will succeed because of the spirit!

 

[exile]

I
Now, I WILL report to you that I have done 25 in one lick Thursday. I say to you now, or may I lose face in front of you!

I will succeed because of the spirit!

I'm not in any doubt of that, nG! What troubles me is the non-random resemblance you (I presume it's you) bear in your avatar to the intimidating Cobra Kai chap admonishing Pat Morita and his young apprentice there... are you sure you weren't a Very Menacing Person at some earlier phase of your life??? :xtrmshock

 

[newGuy12]

I'm not in any doubt of that, nG! What troubles me is the non-random resemblance you (I presume it's you) bear in your avatar to the intimidating Cobra Kai chap admonishing Pat Morita and his young apprentice there... are you sure you weren't a Very Menacing Person at some earlier phase of your life??? :xtrmshock

Haha! Back years ago, I thought that I was getting along with it well. I fancied myself a good TKD black belt, but that was only my perception. And we trained hard. Now, I am nothing but a weakling, and in middle age.

But that does not mean that I have to sit on the couch and accept it. No. I have met good instructors and students who have let me practice their Kempo. Now, that does not have the THUNDER of the TKD that I am accustomed to (or could do now, I am too weak).

To each his own, but, I may, if I get enough stamina back (and if my knee gets good enough) --> go back and meet other black belts from our school. Our GrandMaster is now gone. May He rest in peace. But, a senior student now has a school!

If I can get my strength back, I may go to visit him and try to join into his dojang!

I understand that my way is to stand for Goodness. We see the Man from Okinawa here, he stood for Good Things. Even if I can never be a good free-spar man, I can still enjoy life and stand for Goodness myself, to be a good citizen, and in good shape.

Like some Yogis said -- they get into good shape for many reasons, and one is to be of more use to other people!

 

[Doc_Jude]

Will anyone pick up the gauntlet and rise to the occasion?

Oh, yes.

Some members of the martialtalk board will. And they will succeed. No time for negative talk, or negative thinking. Who Dares Wins. Period.

Now, I WILL report to you that I have done 25 in one lick Thursday. I say to you now, or may I lose face in front of you!

I will succeed because of the spirit!

Hell Yeah!


SWEEP THE LEG!!!

 

[tahuti]

Why is assumed in bodyweight exercises to keep same form forever?

With weights, when it becomes too easy you add more weights, with bodyweight you need to change leverage to make it harder.

If regular pushup is too easy switch to 1 arm pushup or 1 arm-1leg pushup (still trying to keep good form), or use 3 chairs since ground is now much lower than you are, you can do deeper pushups. There are lots of variation depending on position of legs and arms. Some cheap equipment, resistance bands, backpack, T-cross.

And for explosive strength, why not clap pushups or even triple clap pushups?

100 pushups is good endurance training.

 

[newGuy12]

Okay, people. As promised, 25!
Furthermore, I was able to knock out all of the five sets of 20 in class tonight, no problem.
We are so getting there!

Another reminder... there is no "time limit" on this. That is, if it takes one more than two minutes to knock out "The Big 100", then so be it. It may take three minutes, whatever.

Oh, this is going to be one memorable holiday season. I can almost smell that holly tree now!

 

[benj13bowlin]

Okay, people. As promised, 25!
Furthermore, I was able to knock out all of the five sets of 20 in class tonight, no problem.
We are so getting there!

Another reminder... there is no "time limit" on this. That is, if it takes one more than two minutes to knock out "The Big 100", then so be it. It may take three minutes, whatever.

Oh, this is going to be one memorable holiday season. I can almost smell that holly tree now!

Congratz on the 25! If you add one more a day you will hit and be past the mark by X-mas. Keep up the hard work