TacticalBarbell.com

In TBII, K.B. talks about the achievement of 70+ push-ups. Maybe it's 100 push-ups....in any event, it's a lot. I'm going to mince words here a bit, but suffice it to say that K.B. correlated maximal strength with SE. The achievement of 70+ push-ups is facilitated in part, or at least made easier via maximal strength achievements. With SE being a expression and conversion of maximal strength.

With that said:

• *Has anyone achieved strict form 70+ push-ups? Strict form as defined as full lockout and parallel arms at the bottom.
  *Is there a compulsory level of maximal strength that must be achieved in order to also achieve 70+ push-ups? For example, would it be a 1.5x bodyweight?
  *At what point do the marginal gains from maximal strength no longer benefit maximum rep push-ups? In other words, if you are already achieving a 1.5x bodyweight bench press and say 50 push-ups, I would assume that a 1.6x bodyweight bench press would not add 10 push-ups to your max (total:60). Or perhaps it would?

The gist of what I'm wondering is - is there a base level of maximal strength you can achieve at which point adding reps of push-ups is better achieved through other means? Or does there continue to be a tight correlation between maximal strength and SE, even at the upper echelons (re: advanced) of each?

Hope this makes sense. Just curious on people's thoughts.

You're missing the point by focusing on the number "70", which by the way is not a lofty achievement, relatively speaking.

The point is maximal-strength has a direct impact on strength-endurance. If one is weak in maximal-strength and finds they're plateauing when it comes to push-ups, a good strategy would be to go back and build some maximal-strength. If one is strong in the bench press but weak in push-ups, then a good strategy is to put more work into push-ups. Of course you can't correlate a specific number of push-ups with how much you bench or vice versa, that's venturing into mental masturbation territory. There are way too many variables. Not only that, but it's not just bench pressing that helps with push-ups. The overhead press can help, pull-ups by strengthening the stabilizing muscles, abs for bracing etc etc.... This study might help shed light on the relationship between SE/MS:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19620916

spemma wrote: The gist of what I'm wondering is - is there a base level of maximal strength you can achieve at which point adding reps of push-ups is better achieved through other means? Or does there continue to be a tight correlation between maximal strength and SE, even at the upper echelons (re: advanced) of each?

Hope this makes sense. Just curious on people's thoughts.

Yeah I've achieved over 70 (after TB), before that my numbers hung around the mid-60 mark. The challenge is to get into the 100 club.

As far as measuring an exact number I don't think that's possible as Aliean pointed out. Just keep working on both. I think it's more important to understand why you can't neglect MS when striving for super high push-up numbers. Prior to TB I experienced the same phenomena, I tried Pavel's "NASA Push-up Program" in Beyond Bodybuilding and my numbers went down. Once I started weight training again I had an easier time with push-ups and bodyweight work in general.

Also x 2 on what Aelian said, the bench press is just one exercise, it's not BP = Push-ups. Lots of exercises contribute to strengthening the muscles used for push-ups. Get stronger overall in the attribute of maximal-strength, and that carries over to SE numbers with the addition of SE training. I don't think you can put a number on exactly how much (i.e. once you reach a BW bench press or OHP you should be able to do 65 push-ups).

Aelian wrote: The point is maximal-strength has a direct impact on strength-endurance. If one is weak in maximal-strength and finds they're plateauing when it comes to push-ups, a good strategy would be to go back and build some maximal-strength. If one is strong in the bench press but weak in push-ups, then a good strategy is to put more work into push-ups.

Nice.

Aelian wrote:You're missing the point by focusing on the number "70", which by the way is not a lofty achievement, relatively speaking.

The point is maximal-strength has a direct impact on strength-endurance. If one is weak in maximal-strength and finds they're plateauing when it comes to push-ups, a good strategy would be to go back and build some maximal-strength. If one is strong in the bench press but weak in push-ups, then a good strategy is to put more work into push-ups. Of course you can't correlate a specific number of push-ups with how much you bench or vice versa, that's venturing into mental masturbation territory. There are way too many variables. Not only that, but it's not just bench pressing that helps with push-ups. The overhead press can help, pull-ups by strengthening the stabilizing muscles, abs for bracing etc etc.... This study might help shed light on the relationship between SE/MS:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19620916

i threw 70 out there just as an example, but i understand what you're saying.

i hear ya though. i know you can't exactly predict the number of push-ups you can do based on your bench press numbers. although with a good sample population, you probably could generate a simple formula that would accurate within a margin of error. and i chose bench press as the best barbell proxy for a push-up. fully understand that overall strength as facilitated via a full body strength program would be beneficial.

my point was more that if you could bench 500lbs at a bodyweight of 180lbs, i would assume that further maximal strength would not be the impeding factor on adding reps to your max push-ups. similarly, not being able to bench press the bar (45lbs.) would indicate that not many push-ups could be completed. both extreme examples, but meant for demonstrative purposes.

that's an interesting study, thanks for posting. it says: "As the ability to repeatedly apply submaximal force is a requirement of firefighters, and other occupations/sports, the current research suggests that the initial goal of a training program to enhance muscular endurance should be to increase maximum strength to a point that the specific load being lifted during repeated actions is less than 40% of the individuals' 1RM."

would that 40% be the inflection point that i'm referring to? or am i interpreting that wrong?

let's say you have a 180lb male, roughly 1/2 of mass in lower body and 1/2 in upper body. that would equate to 90lb upper body mass and would indicate a minimum 225lb (90 / 40%) 1RM bench press needed as a baseline.

spemma wrote:

Aelian wrote:You're missing the point by focusing on the number "70", which by the way is not a lofty achievement, relatively speaking.

The point is maximal-strength has a direct impact on strength-endurance. If one is weak in maximal-strength and finds they're plateauing when it comes to push-ups, a good strategy would be to go back and build some maximal-strength. If one is strong in the bench press but weak in push-ups, then a good strategy is to put more work into push-ups. Of course you can't correlate a specific number of push-ups with how much you bench or vice versa, that's venturing into mental masturbation territory. There are way too many variables. Not only that, but it's not just bench pressing that helps with push-ups. The overhead press can help, pull-ups by strengthening the stabilizing muscles, abs for bracing etc etc.... This study might help shed light on the relationship between SE/MS:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19620916

i threw 70 out there just as an example, but i understand what you're saying.


my point was more that if you could bench 500lbs at a bodyweight of 180lbs, i would assume that further maximal strength would not be the impeding factor on adding reps to your max push-ups. similarly, not being able to bench press the bar (45lbs.) would indicate that not many push-ups could be completed. both extreme examples, but meant for demonstrative purposes.


would that 40% be the inflection point that i'm referring to? or am i interpreting that wrong?

Take "40%" with a grain of salt. The way the study was set-up isn't going to mimic your own training. For example, benching alone and benching plus ab work are going to give you two different end results on your total push-up max. Someone with weak abs and a crazy bench might not be able to do as many push-ups as someone with a mediocre bench and stronger abs. Abs stabilize and help brace the body when doing movements like PUs. So then how do you factor the 40% into that? See what I mean?

Take the general principle from the study, don't try and mimic it. Real life rarely correlates that accurately with the lab. If it were that easy they'd be able to manufacture elite athletes 100% of the time.

Your other point; yes you are correct, if you have a 500lb bench then max strength probably isn't what's holding you back from increasing your PU #s.

I agree with you completely, Aelian.

I've just been contemplating my own training and wondering, since I came from a strength background, what's going to put the push-ups into the 60-70 range - adding 30-40lbs to my bench press and increasing total body strength further? Or training more push-ups?

Strict push-ups, meaning chest to ground and full lock out, has been hard for me to break 50 reps.

spemma wrote:I agree with you completely, Aelian.

I've just been contemplating my own training and wondering, since I came from a strength background, what's going to put the push-ups into the 60-70 range - adding 30-40lbs to my bench press and increasing total body strength further? Or training more push-ups?

Strict push-ups, meaning chest to ground and full lock out, has been hard for me to break 50 reps.

The correct answer is both. Continue training max strength and continue supplementing training with SE including push-ups. Don't let one lag too far behind the other. Work on conditioning too. Energy systems are involved in high rep SE work. It's a cumulative thing that happens over time. Hitting an arbitrary (or not so arbitrary) bench press number doesn't translate into an automatic number value for push-ups. Meaning a 2 x BW bench isn't going to automatically allow one to drop and pound out a hundred. You have to work on the push-ups as well as you know.

Aelian put it best:

The point is maximal-strength has a direct impact on strength-endurance. If one is weak in maximal-strength and finds they're plateauing when it comes to push-ups, a good strategy would be to go back and build some maximal-strength. If one is strong in the bench press but weak in push-ups, then a good strategy is to put more work into push-ups.



I'll add one more important ingredient to Aelian's awesome summary;

Give it TIME. Reading some posts makes it seem like some people think results come in pretty little 6 or 8 week blocks (and some do) but significant improvement (like going from 50 to 100 pushups) can take anywhere from a year, 5 years, 10 years, 6 months, more or less. It really depends on the individual's discipline, consistency, focus on a particular objective while systematically progressing said objective, and sheer pain tolerance at rare times pain tolerance is called for. It's no different than training for a 2xBW bench or a sub 20 5k.

spemma wrote:
that's an interesting study, thanks for posting. it says: "As the ability to repeatedly apply submaximal force is a requirement of firefighters, and other occupations/sports, the current research suggests that the initial goal of a training program to enhance muscular endurance should be to increase maximum strength to a point that the specific load being lifted during repeated actions is less than 40% of the individuals' 1RM."

would that 40% be the inflection point that i'm referring to? or am i interpreting that wrong?

let's say you have a 180lb male, roughly 1/2 of mass in lower body and 1/2 in upper body. that would equate to 90lb upper body mass and would indicate a minimum 225lb (90 / 40%) 1RM bench press needed as a baseline.

Really interesting discussion guys. I'd really be interested to see someone try this out. Use bodyweight for ease of calculation as the specific load and work up to making that 40% of your 1rm bench. Log push-ups before and after and see what happens, how much improvement.

BlackPyjamas wrote: Give it TIME. Reading some posts makes it seem like some people think results come in pretty little 6 or 8 week blocks (and some do) but significant improvement (like going from 50 to 100 pushups) can take anywhere from a year, 5 years, 10 years, 6 months, more or less. It really depends on the individual's discipline, consistency, focus on a particular objective while systematically progressing said objective, and sheer pain tolerance at rare times pain tolerance is called for. It's no different than training for a 2xBW bench or a sub 20 5k.

Not talking about this thread, but yeah, I am starting to see this all the time and it's becoming a personal pet peeve. Most get pretty damn good results after a block or two of operator or base building or whatever, but the results are good for 6 weeks of training, or whatever the time period is. But it's like people think they can turn into special operators after x amount of blocks. They wonder why they can't do a hundred push-ups and run a 35 minute 5 mile after x number of blocks. No doubt about it, TB has been the fastest most efficient route to results for me, but it's still a long term game.