Push ups doesnt replace bench presses?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

brikis98

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2005
7,253
8
0
Actually max strength helps your endurance a lot, if you don't train it...if you train endurance you can lift a higher % of your 1RM relative to someone that is stronger and doesn't train endurance.

If you have two guys that weigh the same that don't train endurance the guy with a bigger 1RM will be able to do more reps at any given % usually.

Maximal strength and very high rep (>20) muscular endurance are NOT well correlated. It has a lot to do with the energy systems being used. For very short, maximal efforts (<10 seconds), you are mostly using ATP/PC. As the duration increases (<60 seconds), more and more of the Glycolytic (lactic acid) system is used. Finally, beyond 60 seconds, more and more of the aerobic system is used. Although the three energy systems have lots of overlap, the training methods needed to become good at each one are different. So, your 1RM, 3RM, and 5RM - all of which primarily use ATP/PC - are usually pretty well correlated. The 10RM, 15RM and 20RM will be much less correlated with your 1RM because they rely much more on the glycolytic system. And anything above that - 30 reps, 50 reps, etc - will have still less correlation as the predominant energy systems will be glycolytic and aerobic.

So if you can already do 30+ push-ups, adding more weight to your 1RM at bench press is not at all guaranteed to help you do any more push-ups. Likewise, taking your push-up ability from 50 to 70 is not at all guaranteed to help your 1RM at bench press.
 
Last edited:

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Correlation may be weak but rest assured if you're 160 and about to bench 320 lbs you're not going to be topping out at 30 reps pushups, you'll get more.

If you do pushups with hex dumbells on the ground to hold onto the movement is very similar to bench so to make it mirror it closer you'd just need to pile on the weight in a backpack or something.
 
May 13, 2009
12,333
612
126
Man those push ups suck. Just look at Mike Tyson and Hershel Walker back in the day. :rolleyes:

All you guys train to get puffed up like Jay Cutler but if you ever got in the octagon with a guy with a well balanced training routine you'd get your ass kicked. Bigger stronger muscles are good for walking at the beach but are useless. I'd rather have decent strength and awesome endurance.
 
Last edited:

brikis98

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2005
7,253
8
0
Man those push ups suck. Just look at Mike Tyson and Hershel Walker back in the day. :rolleyes:

All you guys train to get puffed up like Jay Cutler but if you ever got in the octagon with a guy with a well balanced training routine you'd get your ass kicked. Bigger stronger muscles are good for walking at the beach but are useless. I'd rather have decent strength and awesome endurance.

First of all, who is this directed at, exactly? Second, the ability to fight has much more to do with fighting technique as opposed to muscular endurance or strength. Third, most fighters these days training maximal strength AND endurance (as well as stamina, speed, agility, etc). Fourth, not everyone has the goal of training for fighting and there is no reason they should. Fifth, many people on this messageboard do make use of a "well balanced training routine", such as Crossfit.
 

kalrith

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2005
6,628
7
81
All you guys train to get puffed up like Jay Cutler but if you ever got in the octagon with a guy with a well balanced training routine you'd get your ass kicked. Bigger stronger muscles are good for walking at the beach but are useless. I'd rather have decent strength and awesome endurance.

Please share your training routine and details on how you bested Jay Cutler in the octagon. Oh wait, you didn't? That's some funny stuff :biggrin:
 

Herbot

Member
Jan 22, 2010
126
0
0
First of all, who is this directed at, exactly? Second, the ability to fight has much more to do with fighting technique as opposed to muscular endurance or strength. Third, most fighters these days training maximal strength AND endurance (as well as stamina, speed, agility, etc). Fourth, not everyone has the goal of training for fighting and there is no reason they should. Fifth, many people on this messageboard do make use of a "well balanced training routine", such as Crossfit.

You might also add that Mike Tyson and Hershel Walker are freaks of nature and no amount of physical training can substitute for genetics. Olympic-level athletes are just good at athletics, no matter what they are. How many stories do you hear of NFL and NBA players being scratch golfers after having played the game for a year? Jim Brown apparently won a bowling tournament after basically playing it for a month. The normal person just cannot compete with that.
 
May 13, 2009
12,333
612
126
Please share your training routine and details on how you bested Jay Cutler in the octagon. Oh wait, you didn't? That's some funny stuff :biggrin:

If I was in the octagon with Jay Cutler (bodybuilder not NFL guy) I'd stick and move. I'd run circles till he was gasping for air due to being unable to get enough oxygen to his "cool" big arms then I'd kick him in the face. I'd win.:sneaky:
 
May 13, 2009
12,333
612
126
You might also add that Mike Tyson and Hershel Walker are freaks of nature and no amount of physical training can substitute for genetics. Olympic-level athletes are just good at athletics, no matter what they are. How many stories do you hear of NFL and NBA players being scratch golfers after having played the game for a year? Jim Brown apparently won a bowling tournament after basically playing it for a month. The normal person just cannot compete with that.

I was trying to point out the fact that it's not just what you're training with (weights or body weight) alot of it is intensity. All these guys obsessed with weights annoy me. I'll take some intense running up stairs or flipping tractor tires anyday of the week over their 50 sets of curls.
 

brikis98

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2005
7,253
8
0
I was trying to point out the fact that it's not just what you're training with (weights or body weight) alot of it is intensity. All these guys obsessed with weights annoy me. I'll take some intense running up stairs or flipping tractor tires anyday of the week over their 50 sets of curls.

Once again, I must remind you that not everyone's goals are the same. If some people train just to look good, that's their business. Moreover, even if your goal is "general physical preparedness" (GPP), you need to understand that conditioning (ie, stamina/endurance) is not everything. The marathon runner who is too weak to lift a couch is just as bad as the powerlifter who can sling the couch over his shoulder, but gets winded walking up a flight of stairs. You need a balance amongst all the 10 fitness domains: cardiovascular/respiratory endurance, stamina, strength, flexibility, power, speed, agility, balance, coordination, and accuracy (for more info, check out the What is Fitness? article). One of the most effective ways to achieve this is to use Crossfit's approach of mixing high intensity conditioning workouts (such as "running up stairs" and "tire flipping") as well as proper strength training (squats, deadlifts, bench press, cleans, jerks, etc). When you take into account human physiology and the energy systems involved in strength training, the most efficient way to do it is typically with barbells and plenty of rest between sets. This is still "intense" (just try a 1RM deadlift or 20 rep squats), but to be effective, it must be done differently than a conditioning workout. This is also quite different than training for aesthetics (with "50 sets of curls"), but as I keep saying, not everyone has the same goals.
 

gramboh

Platinum Member
May 3, 2003
2,207
0
0
I was trying to point out the fact that it's not just what you're training with (weights or body weight) alot of it is intensity. All these guys obsessed with weights annoy me. I'll take some intense running up stairs or flipping tractor tires anyday of the week over their 50 sets of curls.

The problem is no one on this board is really advocating a pro bodybuilder style of training (to try to be Jay Cutler). People here advocate functional strength training (squat, press, deadlift, oly weightlifting) which guess what... MMA fighters do! If you never train maximal strength/power you will never be a good fighter (how they hell do you get a guy off you if you don't have explosive hip power, how the hell do you think Crocop kicks so hard etc).
 

kamper

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2003
5,513
0
0
Other than doing it for the challenge, is there any real usefulness to 100 consecutive pushups? Is there a good way to add weight to pushups? Since I'm able to do 100 now, it's still incorporated into the end of my workouts. The next logical step is 100 with more weight but without someone putting a plate on my back, my only other recourse is to aim for 150. I quite like this challenge though and is why I haven't stopped. I never though I'd get this far and am quite proud of it and plan on continuing my improvements to see how far I could go.

Backpack with books works fine for me, I imagine it would work ok for plates as long as the backpack is relatively strong.
 

SearchMaster

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2002
7,791
114
106
lol I suck bad at pushups, I have trouble doing 10 lol. Then again I'm not benching 100+ pounds like everyone here. I doubt I will ever get to that, I'm not training to be a body builder or anything mind you.

Heh - 100+ pounds isn't much at all, a few sessions in the gym will have you there no matter what your size is. My wife is 5'5" 135# and benches 165, though she's much more fit than the average woman. Of course if you're talking about body weight + 100 pounds - that's a fairly lofty goal.

The story goes that Manute Bol (7'7" former NBA player) could barely bench press the bar at 45# when he arrived in the U.S. but got stronger pretty quickly.
 

Herbot

Member
Jan 22, 2010
126
0
0
My wife is 5'5" 135# and benches 165

That's 120% of her bodyweight, which is fit for males. She must be in really good shape.

I was reading some message board (forget which, think it was an RPG board) about a 200 pound guy who thought he was in good shape and had a 1RM of 60 pounds. That's ludicrous.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
31,649
31,474
146
If I was in the octagon with Jay Cutler (bodybuilder not NFL guy) I'd stick and move. I'd run circles till he was gasping for air due to being unable to get enough oxygen to his "cool" big arms then I'd kick him in the face. I'd win.:sneaky:
No way it goes down like that brudda. With those giant arms, I'd teach him the Tyson cross arm defense, and just have him walk you down. For leg kicks, I'd just have him go for the clinch. May the gods help you if he gets a hold of you. You wouldn't land with hands, you would spend the whole round on your bike, and he would not gas because the style takes little energy. I'd have him fake gassing in the 2nd, you'd look for that high kick, and he'd shoot. G-n-P's you out from there. :biggrin:

End result: he either wins on octagon control and aggression, or by gorilla mauling. See, you can't beat Jay after all. :awe:

BTW, good thread 8/10.
 

Koing

Elite Member <br> Super Moderator<br> Health and F
Oct 11, 2000
16,843
2
0
They're standard military PT pushups which means arms must be fully extended at the top and upper arms at least parallel to the ground at the bottom. Most of the time you won't get credit unless your chest at least brushes the ground. So, yeah, they're pretty close to what you're talking about.

Upper arms to at least parallel isn't the same as your chest touching the floor on every single rep :p, makes a huge difference but also depends on your chest. If you have a huge chest then your laughing, if you don't then you need to move further.

Maximal strength and very high rep (>20) muscular endurance are NOT well correlated. It has a lot to do with the energy systems being used. For very short, maximal efforts (<10 seconds), you are mostly using ATP/PC. As the duration increases (<60 seconds), more and more of the Glycolytic (lactic acid) system is used. Finally, beyond 60 seconds, more and more of the aerobic system is used. Although the three energy systems have lots of overlap, the training methods needed to become good at each one are different. So, your 1RM, 3RM, and 5RM - all of which primarily use ATP/PC - are usually pretty well correlated. The 10RM, 15RM and 20RM will be much less correlated with your 1RM because they rely much more on the glycolytic system. And anything above that - 30 reps, 50 reps, etc - will have still less correlation as the predominant energy systems will be glycolytic and aerobic.

So if you can already do 30+ push-ups, adding more weight to your 1RM at bench press is not at all guaranteed to help you do any more push-ups. Likewise, taking your push-up ability from 50 to 70 is not at all guaranteed to help your 1RM at bench press.

There is less but there still is a correlation. I would find it hard to believe anyone that can bench press at least 1.5x+ can't do at least 30-35 push ups that weren't bibilically strict by my standards (full arms lock out, chest to floor). Most just go low enough to touch a tennis ball and arms to nearly lock out which by most people's standard is 'okay'.

Sure you may not get to 50 or 60 easily but it's not out of the question with some training.

The issue is that the bigger your 1RM is easier it is to work off a given % of that then it is for someone with a smaller 1RM to work off a % off that. It's the same thing with 400m sprinters. The guy that is currently dominating the 400M is the guy that wasn't 'quite' in the top 3 at 200M but he's faster then everyone else at 200M then the 400M boys. He's worked on his endurance and he was last year and the previous year spanking everyone in the 400M.

Koing
 

Herbot

Member
Jan 22, 2010
126
0
0
Upper arms to at least parallel isn't the same as your chest touching the floor on every single rep :p, makes a huge difference but also depends on your chest. If you have a huge chest then your laughing, if you don't then you need to move further.

Point taken. Did my 2 minute max using the specific form you were talking about, dropped down to 87, which is 23 off from my current max. It does make a difference.
 

brikis98

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2005
7,253
8
0
There is less but there still is a correlation. I would find it hard to believe anyone that can bench press at least 1.5x+ can't do at least 30-35 push ups that weren't bibilically strict by my standards (full arms lock out, chest to floor). Most just go low enough to touch a tennis ball and arms to nearly lock out which by most people's standard is 'okay'.

Sure you may not get to 50 or 60 easily but it's not out of the question with some training.
I think we're in agreement. Due to the energy systems involved, the higher the number of reps you are going for, the less impact a big bench press is going to make.

0-15 push-ups: big impact
15-30 push-ups: medium impact
30+ push-ups: small impact

It is also worth noting that this is more or less a one way road: low rep training will have much more impact on higher rep training than high rep training will on low rep training. That is, heavy bench press will help your push-ups much more than high rep push-ups will help your heavy bench press.

The issue is that the bigger your 1RM is easier it is to work off a given % of that then it is for someone with a smaller 1RM to work off a % off that. It's the same thing with 400m sprinters. The guy that is currently dominating the 400M is the guy that wasn't 'quite' in the top 3 at 200M but he's faster then everyone else at 200M then the 400M boys. He's worked on his endurance and he was last year and the previous year spanking everyone in the 400M.

Koing
Again, consider the different energy systems involved. For the 100M sprint, it is primarily ATP. The 200m is ATP + glycolytic. The 400m starts with ATP, gradually includes more glycolytic and at the end gradually shifts to aerobic (this last change is what makes an all out 400m so excruciating). Again, the same training principle applies: training for the 200m will help the 400m much more than training for the 400m helps the 200m.
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,483
32
81
Again, consider the different energy systems involved. For the 100M sprint, it is primarily ATP. The 200m is ATP + glycolytic. The 400m starts with ATP, gradually includes more glycolytic and at the end gradually shifts to aerobic (this last change is what makes an all out 400m so excruciating). Again, the same training principle applies: training for the 200m will help the 400m much more than training for the 400m helps the 200m.

Sadly, this isn't true at all when applied. We actually train 200m athletes for the 400m much more frequently. The weights to sprints analogy isn't quite right.

Low rep, heavy weights: dominantly phosphagen pathway, with some glycolytic depending on how long you take.

Push ups: nearly entirely glycolytic.

200m sprint: mostly glycolytic. It's about a 60&#37; glycolytic, 40% phosphagen split. The utilization of the phosphagen pathway is explosive and intense.

400m sprint: mostly glycolytic - so much that it nearly drains the glycolytic pathway. This is why we training 200m runners with 400m's frequently. Since their glycolytic pathway is being utilized frequently, the body may convert fast-glycolytic fibers to fast oxidative glycolytic fibers. These tend to jump into the game as quickly as fast-glycolytics, but have more oxidative capacity. More likely the adaptation is due to increased enzyme concentration to support the pathway. The glycolytic pathway is the majority of the 200m race so the carryover is astonishing - not in the start of the race, but in the top speed and maintenance of speed. The utilization of the phosphagen pathway is less explosive here as well (signifying less carryover to the 200m). Also, there's an aerobic component.

I believe the argument between bench and push ups is not necessarily an argument of pathway training. You also have to include increase of cross-sectional area of the muscle due to training (bench press induced change), overall cardiovascular capacity (not directly, but it may effect conversion of fast glycolytic to fast-oxidative glycolytic fibers), neural development (which I think is probably one of the more important factors), etc.
 
Last edited:

brikis98

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2005
7,253
8
0
Sadly, this isn't true at all when applied. We actually train 200m athletes for the 400m much more frequently. The weights to sprints analogy isn't quite right.

Low rep, heavy weights: dominantly phosphagen pathway, with some glycolytic depending on how long you take.

Push ups: nearly entirely glycolytic.

200m sprint: mostly glycolytic. It's about a 60&#37; glycolytic, 40% phosphagen split. The utilization of the phosphagen pathway is explosive and intense.

400m sprint: mostly glycolytic - so much that it nearly drains the glycolytic pathway. This is why we training 200m runners with 400m's frequently. Since their glycolytic pathway is being utilized frequently, the body may convert fast-glycolytic fibers to fast oxidative glycolytic fibers. These tend to jump into the game as quickly as fast-glycolytics, but have more oxidative capacity. More likely the adaptation is due to increased enzyme concentration to support the pathway. The glycolytic pathway is the majority of the 200m race so the carryover is astonishing - not in the start of the race, but in the top speed and maintenance of speed. The utilization of the phosphagen pathway is less explosive here as well (signifying less carryover to the 200m). Also, there's an aerobic component.
You are right, the 200m and 400m were not good choices for what I was trying to say. As you said, the 400m, especially for trained runners, is under 1 minute and therefore primarily glycolytic (for a slow poke like myself, it'll be aerobic at the end as well). And yes, the 200m and 400m are too close in distance and energy systems, so my analogy does not hold for them.

Despite that, the general trend IS correct on both weights and running. Training at a higher intensity has much more carry over to lower intensity work than the opposite. This is why shorter running efforts (interval training, sprinting, etc) help longer distance efforts (1 mile, 5k, etc) much more than the other way around. However, it only helps up to a point: just like heavy bench press has less and less effect as you try for higher push-up numbers, 100m sprints have less and less effect as you try for longer distances (5k, 15k, etc). So to get really good at a specific energy system, you do have to devote time specifically to it.

I believe the argument between bench and push ups is not necessarily an argument of pathway training. You also have to include increase of cross-sectional area of the muscle due to training (bench press induced change), overall cardiovascular capacity (not directly, but it may effect conversion of fast glycolytic to fast-oxidative glycolytic fibers), neural development (which I think is probably one of the more important factors), etc.

I definitely agree that there are other factors involved besides the energy systems. For example, in the running example, longer distance efforts (ie, which give you lots of time to practice) may improve your running technique, which help both long and short runs. Having said that, from personal experience, I think the energy systems do play a large role here. When I used to do solely strength training (ATP/PC) and jogging (aerobic), I was piss poor at high rep efforts. I could bench and squat over 300lbs, but couldn't do more than ~40 consecutive push-ups or air squats. Since I started Crossfit, which does a better job of training all the energy systems, I have gotten way better at high rep training (80+ push-ups even though my bench press has gotten weaker, 100+ air squats). And I don't think it is purely a matter of just having more practice with specific exercises: my high rep abilities have consistently improved across the board, even on exercises I rarely do, such as box jumps, wall ball, back extensions, knees to elbows, etc.
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,483
32
81
I definitely agree that there are other factors involved besides the energy systems. For example, in the running example, longer distance efforts (ie, which give you lots of time to practice) may improve your running technique, which help both long and short runs. Having said that, from personal experience, I think the energy systems do play a large role here. When I used to do solely strength training (ATP/PC) and jogging (aerobic), I was piss poor at high rep efforts. I could bench and squat over 300lbs, but couldn't do more than ~40 consecutive push-ups or air squats. Since I started Crossfit, which does a better job of training all the energy systems, I have gotten way better at high rep training (80+ push-ups even though my bench press has gotten weaker, 100+ air squats). And I don't think it is purely a matter of just having more practice with specific exercises: my high rep abilities have consistently improved across the board, even on exercises I rarely do, such as box jumps, wall ball, back extensions, knees to elbows, etc.

Oh, yeah, I definitely agree. Pathways improve dramatically from training. I just wanted to mention some other aspects (particularly form and neural coordination).
 

Koing

Elite Member <br> Super Moderator<br> Health and F
Oct 11, 2000
16,843
2
0
Point taken. Did my 2 minute max using the specific form you were talking about, dropped down to 87, which is 23 off from my current max. It does make a difference.

Yeah makes a big difference. The extra depth and the pause at the top kills the elastic energy you have stored up. But still rock solid figures!

My aerobic and anaerobic capacity is also relatively p!ss poor LOL due to my Oly focus and lack of volume in anything but squats. I get trashed in volume work outs and anything with volume due to lack of training.

Koing
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,108
13,550
126
www.anyf.ca
Heh - 100+ pounds isn't much at all, a few sessions in the gym will have you there no matter what your size is. My wife is 5'5" 135# and benches 165, though she's much more fit than the average woman. Of course if you're talking about body weight + 100 pounds - that's a fairly lofty goal.

The story goes that Manute Bol (7'7" former NBA player) could barely bench press the bar at 45# when he arrived in the U.S. but got stronger pretty quickly.

It's a lot for me, I'm very small and my arms are like popsicle sticks. When I first started I could barely do the bar. :biggrin: A bit over a year later now I can do about 75 depending on if I do that first, or after all my other workouts. So eventually I might hit 100.