|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 42
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Broadsword2004
You guys knocking pushups obviously don't know a whole lot about them it seems. Bodyweight exercises will produce strength far superior to anything weights will produce, including brute strength. It's just they take longer to do it. Reg. american-style pushups are equivalent to benchpressing about 40% of your bodyweight; if you can do 10 reg. pushups, you've got all the strength you'll get. The rest is like you say, endurance. Which is why you increase the leverage on your pushups and do other types. One way is to do the reg. American style pushups on your insteps. This increases the weight on your arms. If you do the re.g pushups on just one instep of your leg, and rest your other leg on top of the leg you're using for support, you increase the weight on your arms to about 80% of your bodyweight. Other forms are Hindu pushups, which are vastly more difficult then reg. pushups. Also, handstand pushups, which are of course going into a handstand and doing pushups from that position. If you're really good, you can do them without a wall. The most elite form of pushups is the planche pushup. The reason is because the leverage is so great for your arms, that it takes a huge amount of strength to overcome it and support the body.
|
ok sure, no one is denying the fact that pushups are gonna get you strength, but still only 40% of your body weight isnt much. if i weighed 200lbs being able to only bench press 80lbs wouldnt be all that impressive now would it. I think the real question, as asked in the original post was "is their any exercise that will get me better results" and sure, using calisthinices is gonna get you good results, but calisthenics alone isnt going to get you as good as results as calisthenics combined with weights, which from reading the latter part of your post im conviced you agree with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Broadsword2004
Pull-ups, the lever pull-ups of gymnasts, and the muscle-up of gymnasts, combined with lots of planche pushups and handstand pushups and Hindu pushups, will after a while produce strength far more functional and equal to or greater than that of a fighter who trains only with weights (in the upper-body). Bodyweight exercises call into service certain stabilizer muscles and motor neurons and so forth that weights just won't give.
Now, granted, calisthenics combined with weights I still think is the best, but the weights should complement the calisthenics, not the other way around, unless you're into bodybuilding.
|
i agree. but i cant imagen any martial artist training in only weights on not incorporating any body weight exercises.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Broadsword2004
My point though is that if you train solely with weights and then go against someone who trains solely with calisthenics, hardcore calisthenics, like the one-legged squats, Hindu squats, muscle-ups, lever pull-ups, planche pushups, handstand pushups, one-arm handstand pushups, etc....the calisthenics person will have the strength and endurance advantage. The great wrestler Gautama was enormous and all he ever did was calisthenics. All of those old Hindu wrestlers did calisthenics, and most of them would've kileld the average wrestler today; HOWEVER, they incorporated weights into their training to. For extra leg strength, they'd attack weights around their necks and do their Hindu squats. Hence, their regiment was calisthenics, but supplemented with weights. Even in pull-ups, weights are usually introduced. Once you can do like 12 or more pullups straight, if you want more strength, you add some weight to your body with a special weight piece of hold a dumbell with your feet or something.
|
yea sure, but if you put the average person who only uses average bodyweight exercises against the average person who only uses basic weight lifting exercises, then imo the person using the weights is going to have a huge advantage in terms of strenght. and even so if you were to put someone who was nuts with calisthinecs against someone who was nuts with only using weights, then i still think the two would be comparible in strenghts that would be functional for the martial arts. i dont think either calisthinecs or weights are better than each other, i see them both as a piece of the puzzle to make a better fighter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Broadsword2004
Weights will not give the kind of strength calisthenics will. But sometimes, for certain areas, you just need weights. But in general, if you train with one or the other, calisthenics are the way to go. An example of needing weights is like for lower back strength. for lower back strength, nothing is better than the deadlift exercises. Except for maybe calisthenics like the reverse situp, where you may hold a weight while pulling up with your lower back muscles. But for tremendous lower back strength, deadlifts are great.
|
i agree with your statement on choosing calisthenics if its either calisthenics or weights, i think bodyweight exercises are perfect for a beginner to fitness.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Broadsword2004
Look at Jackie Chan; he's never trained with weights either. It was intensive calisthenics, gymnastics, and martial arts training. The new, modern approaches to training are obviously better for each sport, as athletes are breaking records these days, however, I think in terms of strength training, weights have been given too much emphasis. And no, not all professional coaches know how to train properly; look at our female gymnasts at the last Olympics. They are thickly muscled, in the thighs, like borderline to bodybuilder musculature, almost. Yet, the gymnasts of Romania and Russia and other European countries that have better gymnasts then us, their gymnasts have legs with much less muscle on them. Which is because they know how to train properly for the sport and we still don't.
|
im not sure where you got the idea that jackie chan doesnt use weights, ive read interviews in which he said he does. I am not following on how your trying to tie in gymnasts with training for martial arts could you be more specific on which event? but either way you cant question weight training as their disadvantage, you would have to question their decision on how to incorporate weights into their routine. and either way, i dont think most gymnasts train to be able to kick and punch harder/faster.
im tired of debating this, i belive i have said everything i think on the subject. so this will be my last post in this topic. |