Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
ProtienFiend
New member
hard2handle said:
Chin ups (palms away), are the best thing I have ever done for my lats. Also hit the arms/back very well.
How Do You Rate?
- Thread starter Nelson Montana
- Start date
Chin ups (palms away), are the best thing I have ever done for my lats. Also hit the arms/back very well.
hard2handle
New member
right on pro-fiend, there actually really frickin hard to do. Also one of the best ways to help prevent one of the most common weight room injuries...
People aften consider the obvious, that is strengthening the stabilizers. But an often over looked benefit is neuro muscular signaling. That is in plain english muscle recruitment. Many may not know this but every muscle has built in (protector neurons) that send signals to the brain, so you don't hurt yourself.
For instance many bbs find it hard to stretch (or feel the stretch) in their calves, this is because of the golgi tendon organs that tell muscle to tense when they feel stretching. Remember those strength shoes to increase your vertical, well they blasted your calves past normal range thus producing more strength do to increased range of motion. And forcing you past the golgi tendon response.
Much in the same way a previous injury or nerve pinch, will shut off certain muscle fibers. And fixed range movements like Hammer Strength machines may in such case serve to further pronounce what is already not efficient movement. So these movements like push ups and pull ups demand synergist(stabilizer) muscle activation, as well as main mover muscles and even sometimes antagonist(opposite) muscles. So In short it creates an enviornment where maximum muscle recruitment is demanded. So your stronger. not more muscle just working the ones you have better.
A perfect example is squat vs. leg press. I can do like 400 lbs more on leg press. Why, are my legs stronger in press position? No I'm more stable cause my back is against a pad.
Ever hear "a wise man digs deep and builds his house on a strong foundation"? Well that is what your core is(foundation). If you can bench 450 lbs, does that mean you can push me that hard? Only if your back is against a wall.
This was short version, but although these exercises are indeed indurance type by nature, it is foolish to say they are not strength exercises. They will absolutely make you bigger and stronger. (In the long run.) Anyone ever heard of Charles Atlas.
People aften consider the obvious, that is strengthening the stabilizers. But an often over looked benefit is neuro muscular signaling. That is in plain english muscle recruitment. Many may not know this but every muscle has built in (protector neurons) that send signals to the brain, so you don't hurt yourself.
For instance many bbs find it hard to stretch (or feel the stretch) in their calves, this is because of the golgi tendon organs that tell muscle to tense when they feel stretching. Remember those strength shoes to increase your vertical, well they blasted your calves past normal range thus producing more strength do to increased range of motion. And forcing you past the golgi tendon response.
Much in the same way a previous injury or nerve pinch, will shut off certain muscle fibers. And fixed range movements like Hammer Strength machines may in such case serve to further pronounce what is already not efficient movement. So these movements like push ups and pull ups demand synergist(stabilizer) muscle activation, as well as main mover muscles and even sometimes antagonist(opposite) muscles. So In short it creates an enviornment where maximum muscle recruitment is demanded. So your stronger. not more muscle just working the ones you have better.
A perfect example is squat vs. leg press. I can do like 400 lbs more on leg press. Why, are my legs stronger in press position? No I'm more stable cause my back is against a pad.
Ever hear "a wise man digs deep and builds his house on a strong foundation"? Well that is what your core is(foundation). If you can bench 450 lbs, does that mean you can push me that hard? Only if your back is against a wall.
This was short version, but although these exercises are indeed indurance type by nature, it is foolish to say they are not strength exercises. They will absolutely make you bigger and stronger. (In the long run.) Anyone ever heard of Charles Atlas.
ghettostudmuffin
New member
Charles Atlas sold isometric muscle courses in comics under the name of dynamic tension.
He also "supplemented" these with weight training 3x a week wherein he would "test" himself, but he only confessed to doing this later on.
I just did not like Nelson's post because 1. the scientific basis of strength and how athletes around the world are gaged is by 1 rep max strength.
2. Most of those exercises and the weight/rep range listed steer more towards endurance and cardiovascular development rather than strength.
3. Pushups do not build much strength. They build muscular endurance. Granted, moving onto harder variations like one-arm pushups or pushups/one-arms on a cable become very hard and can build great strength and soem decent muscle(look at gymnasts), but they only use about 60% of your bodyweight and that's if you do them textbook. Also, I have done cubic assloads of pushups in the past and at one point could do 15 perfect one-arms with each arm so I know something about this subject.
As for muscles, well when it comes to actually building muscle and strength itself, there isn't much difference between a barbell or a high quality machine like Hammer Strength besides the balancing aspect. Unless you are competing in weightlifting or powerlifting.
And the reason you can do WAY more weight on a leg press vs. a barbell squat(which is the best damn exercise ever for pure size and strength) is because A. Squats are harder period. B. you have to balance the weight and
squat your bodyweight plus that additional weight C. Your entire body contracts D. your abdominals and lowerback are heavily worked and strengthened from it.
If 2 guys weigh 200lbs and all thigns being equal, one guy can routinely rep 100lbs for 50 reps in a minute and the other guy squats 300x5, who is stronger? I hope that's obvious, but if not I'll explain why the heavy squatter is far stronger.
He is stronger because he is lifting more weight. His muscles, tendons and ligaments have all greatly increased in strength from having to bear and lift the heavy load. His cardio may not be so stellar, but he's strong from head to toe. If he were asked to perform half his weight for reps he'd look at you cross eyed and asked if you were a cardio guru. He'd probably bust out 20-30 reps before his cardio gave out. An ok showing.
The other guy has nicely defined legs with some decent size, and his cardio is through the roof! But, he's a weak bitch in reality because if he put that same 300lbs on his back by the time he hit parallel he'd probably drop like a rock with no chance of getting the weight up because he has not built the strength throughout his body to lift that weight.
You see, the stronger you get, the more reps with a given light weight you will be able to do. This is fact. If a guy routinely benches 225 by 12-15 and you bench +300 for reps, chances are good that you could out rep him with his weight, even if you don't typically go that high rep because you have strength in reserve which he does not and which is why he can't bench the heavier weight.
And lastly, when comparing 2 fighters of equal ability, the bigger, stronger man is likely to win. BUT, if 2 fighters meet up and one is significantly better at fighting than the other, but the other guy is alot stronger then by virtue of his surplus strength he is afforded some leeway over the guy depending more on his skill.
I've seen some smart ass scrappers pick a fight with a big strong guy that they were technically superior too, that got manhandled and curb slammed in seconds.
Pure strength and power can end things immediately. Endurance never finished anything fast.
I'm no expert, but I thought I'd clear a few things up.
He also "supplemented" these with weight training 3x a week wherein he would "test" himself, but he only confessed to doing this later on.
I just did not like Nelson's post because 1. the scientific basis of strength and how athletes around the world are gaged is by 1 rep max strength.
2. Most of those exercises and the weight/rep range listed steer more towards endurance and cardiovascular development rather than strength.
3. Pushups do not build much strength. They build muscular endurance. Granted, moving onto harder variations like one-arm pushups or pushups/one-arms on a cable become very hard and can build great strength and soem decent muscle(look at gymnasts), but they only use about 60% of your bodyweight and that's if you do them textbook. Also, I have done cubic assloads of pushups in the past and at one point could do 15 perfect one-arms with each arm so I know something about this subject.
As for muscles, well when it comes to actually building muscle and strength itself, there isn't much difference between a barbell or a high quality machine like Hammer Strength besides the balancing aspect. Unless you are competing in weightlifting or powerlifting.
And the reason you can do WAY more weight on a leg press vs. a barbell squat(which is the best damn exercise ever for pure size and strength) is because A. Squats are harder period. B. you have to balance the weight and
squat your bodyweight plus that additional weight C. Your entire body contracts D. your abdominals and lowerback are heavily worked and strengthened from it.
If 2 guys weigh 200lbs and all thigns being equal, one guy can routinely rep 100lbs for 50 reps in a minute and the other guy squats 300x5, who is stronger? I hope that's obvious, but if not I'll explain why the heavy squatter is far stronger.
He is stronger because he is lifting more weight. His muscles, tendons and ligaments have all greatly increased in strength from having to bear and lift the heavy load. His cardio may not be so stellar, but he's strong from head to toe. If he were asked to perform half his weight for reps he'd look at you cross eyed and asked if you were a cardio guru. He'd probably bust out 20-30 reps before his cardio gave out. An ok showing.
The other guy has nicely defined legs with some decent size, and his cardio is through the roof! But, he's a weak bitch in reality because if he put that same 300lbs on his back by the time he hit parallel he'd probably drop like a rock with no chance of getting the weight up because he has not built the strength throughout his body to lift that weight.
You see, the stronger you get, the more reps with a given light weight you will be able to do. This is fact. If a guy routinely benches 225 by 12-15 and you bench +300 for reps, chances are good that you could out rep him with his weight, even if you don't typically go that high rep because you have strength in reserve which he does not and which is why he can't bench the heavier weight.
And lastly, when comparing 2 fighters of equal ability, the bigger, stronger man is likely to win. BUT, if 2 fighters meet up and one is significantly better at fighting than the other, but the other guy is alot stronger then by virtue of his surplus strength he is afforded some leeway over the guy depending more on his skill.
I've seen some smart ass scrappers pick a fight with a big strong guy that they were technically superior too, that got manhandled and curb slammed in seconds.
Pure strength and power can end things immediately. Endurance never finished anything fast.
I'm no expert, but I thought I'd clear a few things up.
ProtienFiend
New member
GhettoStudMuffin said:
Since i'm responding to this, id like to say that its dependent on what you're training for, which Nelson mentioned in his post. Most importantly the specific exercise (squats, pushups, bench, etc..). It's like strongman, if youre doing the stone lift, youre NOT going to train by doing bench or even squats.... YOU'RE GOING TO LIFT STONES!!! You can excel at anything if you train for it. Obviously the people that incorporate push-ups into their routine will score higher on Nelson's test, that doesn't make it a bad gauge though.
hard2handle
New member
Ok, my bad. I did assume most in here are training for body building. Ghetto your correct. If we had too max out today, I would loose. However in your 100x50 vs. 300x5 example i assume you are indicating 300x5 is stronger. That is correct, however by adding just 50lbs the lighter lifter will surpass the heavier in actual strength. That is to say 150x50 takes more strength than 300x5. At least according to Brzycki, Epley, and Lander which are scientifically accepted (and professionally accepted) coversions for relative 1 rep max. And again that only assumes prime mover strength. One of my clients has a rotator cuff injury, and struggles with any tricep exercise. Synergism.
And the 'why am I stronger on leg press'question was retorical. As you suggest squats require more muscle recruitment, which only serves to prove my point. As an actual movement push ups are far superior to benching. However it would be better to add weight in the push up position for optimum strength routine.
Which brings me to last point. pushups are NOT only indurance, they are also very much balance(strength) and stabliity(strength). If you read my comment earlier you see why these are just as important. if you can squat 400 lbs can you squat 200 with one leg? No way, but keep doing those one leg squats for 4 weeks and come back to regular squat. I guarantee you'll be WAY stronger.
I want to be the best I can be. The most efficient angle on a lever produces the most force. Which is what your joints are (levers). If you have 5 ropes attached to the same object at different angles and locations would you rather pull harder on the biggest rope or pull evenly across all 5?
I agree with Nelson your brain is your best muscle.
And I really did add 20% to my bench in the last 5 weeks from push ups. In case your wondering that equates to jumping from 65 lb dumbell press to 85 lb dumbell press. That's flat bench set of 12, 10, 8. with an 85 in each hand.
That's a sweet ass gain for me!
And the 'why am I stronger on leg press'question was retorical. As you suggest squats require more muscle recruitment, which only serves to prove my point. As an actual movement push ups are far superior to benching. However it would be better to add weight in the push up position for optimum strength routine.
Which brings me to last point. pushups are NOT only indurance, they are also very much balance(strength) and stabliity(strength). If you read my comment earlier you see why these are just as important. if you can squat 400 lbs can you squat 200 with one leg? No way, but keep doing those one leg squats for 4 weeks and come back to regular squat. I guarantee you'll be WAY stronger.
I want to be the best I can be. The most efficient angle on a lever produces the most force. Which is what your joints are (levers). If you have 5 ropes attached to the same object at different angles and locations would you rather pull harder on the biggest rope or pull evenly across all 5?
I agree with Nelson your brain is your best muscle.
And I really did add 20% to my bench in the last 5 weeks from push ups. In case your wondering that equates to jumping from 65 lb dumbell press to 85 lb dumbell press. That's flat bench set of 12, 10, 8. with an 85 in each hand.
That's a sweet ass gain for me!
silver_shadow
New member
this is my analogy for whoever says the endurance guy is stronger.
take a powerlifter who maxes on squats with 600lbs.
now compare him to a marathon runner who weighs maybe 140 and probably would struggle to do a rep with 200lbs. now who is stronger? you'll now say it's the powerlifter obviously. but that is a contradiction by your logic. why? read on...
take each leg stride of the runner as 2 squats of 140lbs (considering it to be a 1 leg squat. now assume each stride of his is 1 metre long. considering a full marathon is 42.5 kms, then he would have made 42500 strides each of 1 metre! each of those is 2 squats of 140lbs so it's the equivalent now of 85000 reps of 140lbs... say he covered the marathon is 2 and a half hours....
so we end up with 85000 140lb (body weight) squats in 2 hrs and 30 mins... the PL can neither run that distance, nor can he squat 85000 reps at body weight or even 140lbs in 2 hrs and 30 mins. so we have a winner. the 140lb ethopian
take a powerlifter who maxes on squats with 600lbs.
now compare him to a marathon runner who weighs maybe 140 and probably would struggle to do a rep with 200lbs. now who is stronger? you'll now say it's the powerlifter obviously. but that is a contradiction by your logic. why? read on...
take each leg stride of the runner as 2 squats of 140lbs (considering it to be a 1 leg squat. now assume each stride of his is 1 metre long. considering a full marathon is 42.5 kms, then he would have made 42500 strides each of 1 metre! each of those is 2 squats of 140lbs so it's the equivalent now of 85000 reps of 140lbs... say he covered the marathon is 2 and a half hours....
so we end up with 85000 140lb (body weight) squats in 2 hrs and 30 mins... the PL can neither run that distance, nor can he squat 85000 reps at body weight or even 140lbs in 2 hrs and 30 mins. so we have a winner. the 140lb ethopian
silver_shadow said:this is my analogy for whoever says the endurance guy is stronger.
take a powerlifter who maxes on squats with 600lbs.
now compare him to a marathon runner who weighs maybe 140 and probably would struggle to do a rep with 200lbs. now who is stronger? you'll now say it's the powerlifter obviously. but that is a contradiction by your logic. why? read on...
take each leg stride of the runner as 2 squats of 140lbs (considering it to be a 1 leg squat. now assume each stride of his is 1 metre long. considering a full marathon is 42.5 kms, then he would have made 42500 strides each of 1 metre! each of those is 2 squats of 140lbs so it's the equivalent now of 85000 reps of 140lbs... say he covered the marathon is 2 and a half hours....
so we end up with 85000 140lb (body weight) squats in 2 hrs and 30 mins... the PL can neither run that distance, nor can he squat 85000 reps at body weight or even 140lbs in 2 hrs and 30 mins. so we have a winner. the 140lb ethopian
That made my head hurt.
Strength comes in many ways but I think there has to be a point where we're talking about stamina. Where that is, is subjective.
I still think getting into the 20 or so rep range is more strength than stamina. It's like a sprint -- it lasts only 30 seconds but with lots of "reps."
One rep max's are more a matter on tendon, ligiment and bone strength. Most guys who do well at that seem to have it from the start. Few people start out weak and become champion powerlifters. Yet you can start out scrawny and become pretty muscular.
no1_brawler
New member
Nelson Montana said:
You have absolutely lost it mentally. Everything your saying is going agaianst all the sports scientists who've studied the human anatomy for the past 100 50yrs. 20 reps is not Srength you IDIOT. Absolute strength is determined from lifting the most weight you can for 1 rep. To test 20rep max is not a test of strength, its a test of muscle endurance and energy reserves.
And NO, 1 rep max is not more the matter of tendon, ligiments and bone strength mate. If your muscles can only contract fully with 100kg on the bench press, it doesnt matter how streong your tendons and bones are. The only way thats possible is if you have very stroing muscles and weak tendons and bones which wont happen cause training with your near max's will get u used to it. And 1rep max's dont injure you, stop being a pussy. Ive done 95%-100% of my max a few times a month and ive been injury free for a long time and im benching 300+ and deadlifting 480lbs with no belt.
CONCLUSION. You sound like a weak guy who wants to feel better about himself.
hard2handle
New member
no1, You made this up, its does not contradict 100 years of science, At least according to The Nat'l Academy of Sports Medicine. What you are refering to is power. And that is a different style of training all together. If you care to see them I will site a minimum of 30 medical journals.
And Nelson there is a cut off, right around 30 sec. This is where phosphate/creatine energy production pathways are overtaken by oxygen pathways or aerobic. This is actual ATP production. The very definition af strength vs. endurance.
And Silver, you made an excellent comment. Thank you for using your head. I should have qualified earlier what I stated in above paragraph. We are only refering to strength trainig. Which would actually only apply to exercises under 40 secs. at the most. I can now do nearly 50 push ups till failure which does indeed take me more than 30 sec. But as I previously stated I've benn doing push ups for 5 weeks now adding 20% to my bench. And on that note I am not even close to being able to rip off 50 pull ups. I can do about 20 in much less than 30 sec. so def in strength range.
Now to be fair I will be going back to heavy bench for a few weeks say @ 6 weeks now that I have blown through my plateau.
And Nelson there is a cut off, right around 30 sec. This is where phosphate/creatine energy production pathways are overtaken by oxygen pathways or aerobic. This is actual ATP production. The very definition af strength vs. endurance.
And Silver, you made an excellent comment. Thank you for using your head. I should have qualified earlier what I stated in above paragraph. We are only refering to strength trainig. Which would actually only apply to exercises under 40 secs. at the most. I can now do nearly 50 push ups till failure which does indeed take me more than 30 sec. But as I previously stated I've benn doing push ups for 5 weeks now adding 20% to my bench. And on that note I am not even close to being able to rip off 50 pull ups. I can do about 20 in much less than 30 sec. so def in strength range.
Now to be fair I will be going back to heavy bench for a few weeks say @ 6 weeks now that I have blown through my plateau.
Similar threads
