push-ups effective?

[carter]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Thai Bri]

People must remember that strength is not the only factor.

Your averae weight trainer will not have a lot of heart and lungs. He will tire quickly.

Callisthenice trains cardio pretty well.

I'm tired too. But I'm going to keep going. Coz I can, coz I do cardio.

[Broadsword2004]

With the gymnasts, I just meant that we Americans placed too much emphasis on using weights for certain sports that don't really require them. Like in gymnastics, for some reason, our coaches think those girls need thickly muscled legs.

As for Jackie Chan, I meant as he was growing up in/at the Peking Opera School, he didn't use weights.

If you put the average person who does real calisthenics up against the average person who does weights, the calisthenics person will have the advantage in strength and endurance. If you mean Joe Schmoe who just does 50 crunches a day and 50 pushups a day, up against Joe Blow who does benchpressing every 2 days, squatting, barbell rowes, biceps curls, etc....then yeah, in terms of strength, Joe Blow will probably have the better strength. But I'm referring to if Joe Schmoe does hardcore calisthenics. But calisthenics tax your cardio. Knock off 150 straight Hindu squats and then check your heart. It will probably be beating very fast. Hindu squats will strengthen your knee ligaments, plus build up explosive strength, as well as muscular endurance in your legs, as well as taxing your entire cardio system. That's one of the unique things about Hindu squats. If you do them, you don't need to run on a treadmill or anything. You can run through nature for the joy of it, but Hindu squats will give you explosive legs, strong legs, legs that have ltos of muscular endurance, and a really cardio workout. You just have to do them in extrmely high numbers to get great benefits. People don't like them though because you feel like you're gonna collapse sometimes when you're half-way through the number you planned to do.

Oh yeah, this may be unrelated, but from what I have seen, guys who train for real strength, who use weights, they often do the hardcore exercises where you're killing yourself while doing them. And if you do those kinds of exercises with true passion and discipline, you'll get very strong. And if you do hardcore calisthenics with true passion and discipline, you'll get very strong too. And if you combine them, you will also. But people who just "go through the motions" pretty much won't. The thing is, though, a calisthenics person and a weight trained person, while they may both have great strength, walking on your hands for the calisthenics person may be a cinch, where for the weight training person, they can have the strength for it, but not the balance and fall over. They may also not be able to do a planche. Now you may say, "What the hell would a fighter need those skills for??" but in general, if you can have them, I think you should, and fighters of old days often had those skills. They provide increased balance and coordination.

But yeah, I think we understand each other's points now.

Calisthenic exercises with weights added are also extremely good, as we agreed, and exercises like benchpress, squat, rowe, etc....are basically like calisthenic exercises but with weights.

As for pushups, remember, the pushups that put about 40% of your bodyweight on your arms are the reg. style pushups, the basic kind. You only do those for increasing endurance or if you are super weak. Otherwise, do the more hardcore pushups.

[nwtogame]

I don't know that you skipped mentioning being forgetful or on purpose but.....if you lift the right way with minimal rest periods in between sets and exercises you heart rate WILL be elevated the whole time. I'mnot all that famaliar with a Hindu squat or lunge (not sure what you called it) but I can tell you that lunges and squats done right will leave short of breath. NOTHING is the equivelant to running though. Running can't be replaced.......period. If you don't believe you going to struggle ever getting the same conditioning of someone that can go run for 90 min for a warmup before sparring. You can elevate your heart rate and I'll give you that to a level of running but I'm having a hard time believing you can elevate you heart rate and keep it there comparable to running just by doing some squats. My years of training in and out of the gym (running) are saying that your legs are going to fatiuge before, if not I'm saying those lunges aren't doing a whole hell of a lot if you can do them for couple of hours (but I doubt thats the case). I agree generally though and to be elite and in top competition form you need to mix. I wouldn't advocate using weights a lot just enough to KEEP your strenth. the main thing someone already hit on was speed and endurance in which case practice, practice, practice.

[Broadsword2004]

Hindu squats will elevate your heatrate to the point of a full-on sprint, but usually the longest you can keep doing them is for about 15 minutes (continuously). At that point, you probably will have done around 1600 - 2000 Hindu squats, at which your legs will probably collapse. You yourself will probably collapse because you'll be so short of breath. And Hindu squats can replace long period running, I believe. I read an article in Muscle Media, in which they even told about how new training doesn't even require long running for developing endurance. The Japanese speedskaters didn't do any running for endurance. They did a form of hardcore sprinting, in such a way that it taxed the hell out of the body. It was a program the magazine called Guerilla Cardio.

However, running in terms of moving on the legs, you're right, nothing replaces it, as sprints are a form of running. But you do not need to run long distances to develop good endurance (not that you said you had to either, but just in case that is what you thought).

[Broadsword2004]

Oh by the way the Hindu squat is not the lunge exercise, if you meant that in your last post.

[Tilt4]

sort of related to this topic, but on its own in a way...
I'm in probably the worst shape of my life. I guess it started two years ago when I got cut from the basketball team in high school. It sort of snowballed and with my first year of university this year... I've gotten way out of any sort of regimen. I'm just wondering if by doing body weight exercises [push-ups, sit-ups, squats...] I will notice any visual improvement on my body within a month, and what a regimen would be to start with. It's really quite terrible. Beer gut, early stage man bosoms, love handles... the whole thing. Will push-ups and sit-ups take my appearance towards that of a slimmer, healthier me over the summer? I'm not expecting it all to be gone, but the closer I get to being fit, the better. I just want to eliminate a lot of the fat without the whole gym membership hassle.
Also, if this will work, what would anyone suggest for the workout and how often for best results?
Much appreciated.

[Tom Yum]

Originally Posted by Tilt4

Will push-ups and sit-ups take my appearance towards that of a slimmer, healthier me over the summer? Also, if this will work, what would anyone suggest for the workout and how often for best results?
Much appreciated.

Bodyweight excercises will improve your apperance toward the lean and mean appearance.

Appearance and fitness are certainly linked, but not entirely. I know guys who don't look like much but can swim like fish, run like leapords and bang out calisthenics all day - whereas there are guys who have great muscular development who die after a few minutes of swim, run or martial arts activity.

There are also some who fit both categories - look buff or ripped and can run folks into the ground.

In my humble opinion, body weight excercises are a great starting point for someone out of shape and good for those who are looking to balance out or cross train for improved fitness.

How you 'look' is also a function of diet too.

A good place to start for functional, bodyweight excercises that will get you shredded - crossfit.com, rosstraining.com or stewsmith.com

[jonbey]

Tilt4 - bodyweight training alone will get you a long way. Do varied circuit training routines several times a week, and you will get in shape. Are you still at Uni? If so, then join one or two of the martial arts classes. If US Uni's are like UK ones, there should be plenty of choice.

As for he initial question, I think that press ups are probably adequate in most cases for a martial artist. Lots of functional strength etc. One problem with hitting the weights, especially bench presses, is that you may start to expand your ribcage, and that makes weaker ribs. Press ups, keeping your elbows close to body, is better in this respect.

To break the questions down:

1. are push-ups effective?
yes

2. or is there something else that can give you better results for upper body strength?
yes, complimenting your BWE routine with some compound weight training.
Bodybuilders and athletes both lift weights, but take different approaches. Athletes go mostly for compound exercises, whereas bodybuilders do a lot of isolation. Leave those isolation ones out, and you should compliment your training without weakening.

[Marksmarkou]

Push ups are effective. It all depend on when and how you do them.

Beginneres will benefit from push ups the most as they shall shock the upper body muscles to react to being worked out. When they have been doing bodyweight oushups for a while though they shall start to gain LESS with them. Thats a good time to start using weights.

There are variations to pressups (wide arm, narrow arm, finger, one arm, clap etc) All of these are good to work different types of muscles, and can give your upper body a good workout.


So to evaluate, push ups are effective.

[JuijitsuMan]

Although some here have said that BWE incorporate whole body movements and weights don't so BWE is more transferrable to fighting let's consider:

a) the weight trainer who picks compound movements likes squats, bench presses, dips, pullups, ab situp, and adds some isolation work like biceps curls, hamstring curl , back extension etc.

What do we have with A? We have weights being done in a way that is more for sports than bodybuilding.

So its not just weights thats the issue, its how its done.

I myself and still trying to figure out which one (BWE or weights) is best for me.

[JuijitsuMan]

What do you think, for BJJ is weights or BWE better? This is strictly gi. Matches last 5 min each and rolling in class is for 30 min or so. Each person has about 30 min of continous cardio if they elect to choose all matches. Its submission oriented, not lay and pray. Constantly attacking the submission be it from mount, guard, etc.