Pushups for muscle endurance ?

[kh_s]

Was just wondering, how many sets & reps should this be done for muscle endurance ? Or should you just do pushups as fast as you can until failure ?

[kungfupanda]

25-military
25-wide, fingers pointed outside
25-fingers pointed inside
25-knuckles
then finish up by doing as many military push-ups as you can...that shouldnt be too much after doing the formentioned.

[kh_s]

Thxs, but should these be done fairly fast,slow, or at your own pace ?

[James Bullock]

Training to failure is counter productive..train as often as possible while you are as fresh as possible.


Try this....

Do half of your total number of reps that you can do in multiple sets...how many??..until your form starts to break down or you get to slow. Not until failure.

What I am currently doing is while I am at work every hour I do half of my max number of pushups. Works very well ...for me that is.

there is excellent info on this at www.dragondoor.com

Regards,

[terry]

Originally posted by James Bullock
Training to failure is counter productive..train as often as possible while you are as fresh as possible.

Hmmmm...then I must be very counter productive in my training because I seek to produce failure every time I train. In fact, I would say that your body is extremely stingy with respect to the way that it adapts to exercise regimens and that to improve you HAVE to produce failure.

[epimetheus]

http://nsca.allenpress.com/nscaonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1064-8011&volume=014&issue=03&page=0328

[James Bullock]

Here is a portion of a great article by Charles Staley at myodynamics.com about training to failure....

The Final Rep: Re-evaluating the Practice of "Training to Failure"
by Charles I. Staley, B.Sc., MSS

(Posted 8/27/97)
The notion of "training to failure" is perhaps one of the most revered practices in the modern bodybuilder's "toolbox." But interestingly, this training method seems unique to bodybuilding. In other iron sports, such as Olympic weightlifting, powerlifting, and throwing, athletes develop enormous levels of muscle mass without training to failure, at least not in the way that most bodybuilders would define it. This observation, coupled with the fact that many elite-level bodybuilders do not embrace this practice, warrants a second look at this concept.

Birth of a Paradigm

Many credit Arthur Jones (the inventor of Nautilus equipment) with developing and popularizing the "one set to failure" paradigm. Jones argued that bodybuilders should work to the point of momentary failure, using one set per exercise/per session, rather than using multiple sets of multiple exercises. But Jone's commercial success may been potentiated by a long-standing tradition among young trainees (particularly men) who, in the absence of qualified supervision, regularly trained to failure as an intuitive way of obtaining objective feedback about their progress. Whenever an additional rep could be performed with a given weight, the trainee was psychologically reinforced, which further entrenched this "habit."

Unfortunately, it also reinforced poor exercise form and the tremendous frustration that set in when, after several months of monotonous training, the inevitable plateau set in. This frustration then paved the way for numerous ill-conceived commercialized training "systems" that emerged over the past several decades. The result is an endless cycle of unsupervised trainees switching from one miracle method to another, in an endless search for the "perfect program."

Before we criticize Jones or the authors of the many programs available today, it may be necessary to revise our expectations of what a training method should and shouldn't do. Remember that nearly any training method can be effective, at least temporarily, for the following reasons:

1) Beginners will make short-term progress with any training method, provided they aren't injured in the process.

2) Many people train in a very monotonous manner, rarely changing acute exercise variables such as choice of exercise, order of exercise, rest periods, and load (volume and intensity). When such a person changes programs, they will progress, at least temporarily.

Conversely, NO training program is perfect because:

1) Everyone is different. No two people respond exactly the same to a given program.

2) The body will eventually accommodate to any program, and when it does, you hit a plateau.

The conclusion that might be drawn from these points is that all methods can be viewed as "tools" which have a certain degree of utility when used in the proper proportion and in the right context. The problem is when a proclamation is made that "This is the perfect program for all people all of the time!"

DEFINITIONS

A significant impediment to discussing this issue is the lack of consistent working definitions for several terms which are germain to the discussion at hand:

What is "Training to Failure"?

The very definition of "training to failure" needs considerable clarification. Does it mean concentric failure? Eccentric failure? Inability to complete another repetition in good form? (and what is "good form?") Inability to maintain the desired tempo (speed of execution)? Are we referring to failure of the cellular, or neural system? Failure of the stabilizers, or prime movers? (Please see the sidebar entitled "Training to Failure: Traditional and Revised Definitions" for a closer look at these questions).

For the purposes of this discussion, "training to failure" describes training in a manner where each set is continued to the point where further concentric repetitions "in good form" cannot be completed under the lifter's own volition. Second, the notion of failure is inexorably linked to the magnitude of effort and ability to withstand pain and fatigue- both of which are subjective qualities.

What is "Good Form?"

While the amount of resistance, number of sets and reps, etc., constitute the quantitative element of training, good form (or exercise technique) can be seen as the qualitative element. Exercise technique includes range of motion, tempo, and control over the resistance being lifted. For the sake of variation, bodybuilders should plan for regular variations in tempo and range of motion. Such variations help to break through strength and hypertrophy plateaus. Control, however, should never be sacrificed, especially for the purpose of "eeking out" another repetition. For the sake of this discussion, "good form" will be defined as "exercise performance which is consistent with pre-determined objectives concerning range of motion, tempo, and control of the resistance." Using this definition, it is not considered bad form to lift a weight through a partial range of motion, as long as you pre-determined that the repetitions would be performed in that manner. On the other hand, if you planned to do parallel squats, and start losing depth due to fatigue, this would be considered bad form. Similarly, if you plan for a certain tempo (duration of each repetition) or even rest period, it would be considered bad form to alter these parameters in the middle of a workout.

What is Intensity?

Sports scientists and bodybuilders often assign two very different meanings to this term. In the sports sciences, intensity is usually defined as the difficulty of the work performed, expressed as a percentage of 1RM (One repetition maximum), or an athlete's maximum poundage for a single repetition for any given lift. Using this definition, if an athlete has a 1RM of 400 pounds in the leg press, a set performed with 350 pounds is more "intense" than a lift performed with 300 pounds, regardless of how many reps were performed, how close the set came to failure, or how much mental effort was applied.

Most bodybuilders, on the other hand, define intensity as the magnitude of effort applied to a task. Using this definition, a leg press of 300 pounds might be more intense than a set with 350 pounds, if a greater effort was applied to that set.

For our purposes then,we will distinguish between "extrinsic" intensity (or, the magnitude of the external load) and "intrinsic" intensity (or, the magnitude of effort applied against that load). It's important to recognize that extrinsic intensity is objective, and intrinsic intensity is subjective. In other words, we can measure the weight on the bar as a percentage of maximum, but when someone claims that they "went to failure," we have to take his or her word for it.

Objectives and Methods of Training

For bodybuilders, the object of training is muscular hypertrophy. The methods used to accomplish this objective are dictated by various training principles, most notably the principle of progressive overload. Fatigue, and occasionally failure, are unavoidable by-products of these methods. Viewing fatigue and/or failure as an objective of training (as many bodybuilders do) is masochistic and counterproductive.

The hallmarks of successful training are long-term consistency and progression. But progression must be gradual- very gradual- if it is to be consistent. Many athletes insist on always taking a set to utter failure, even if it's not necessary to achieve a new personal record. But these same athletes neglect to project these gains into the future, which reveals the impossibility of continuing these gains. As an example, if you manage to put 5 pounds a week on your squat, this equates to 20 pounds a month, and 240 pounds a year. If this could be continued for even three years, you would be a national level powerlifter, with size to go along with it! A better approach is to achieve very small increases in load on a regular basis, even though you won't reach failure. These smaller increases are easier for the body to adapt to, and recuperate from. Taking each and every set to complete failure is like trying to run a marathon at sprint speed- after a very short period of sprinting, you'll have to slow down considerably, if you expect to finish the race.

The Downside of One Set to Failure

As stated earlier, few training practices or techniques are good or bad in the absolute sense. Most often, it's a matter of application and context. Performing all sets to failure (or, trying to) is particularly problematic, for the following reasons:

1) Insufficient training volume for hypertrophy development

Many studies have confirmed that metabolic changes associated with muscular hypertrophy are best instigated through loading by high volumes, whereas neural adaptations are best brought about through high intensity loads.

Training volume is calculated in pounds lifted per unit of time. If you plan to lift a certain weight for 5 sets of 5 reps, only the last set would approach concentric failure- if you went to failure on the first set, the subsequent sets would have to be performed with significantly less weight. This decreases volume, which can negatively impact muscular hypertrophy. International strength coach Charles Poliquin observes that for any two athletes on the same basic program, the athlete who uses a higher volume will have greater hypertrophy.1 This observation may be due in part to increased levels of anabolic hormones which are associated with multi-set (as opposed to single set) training2.

A second factor to consider with respect to the training load is that there is a limit to how long you can achieve progressions in intensity, but increases in volume can be achieved for a much longer period. For example, after about 9-10 years of solid training experience, you'll arrive at (or very close to) your maximum lifts (1RM's). Past this point, it becomes nearly impossible to increase the training load through increases in intensity. It's much more feasible at this point to increase training volume (by adding reps and/or sets). In this way, you can continue to make gains in muscle mass.

2) Injury potential, both acute and chronic, increases

Noted exercise scientist Paul Ward warns that training to failure results in ischemic reperfusion, or oxygen deprivation, followed by oxygen perfusion. This results in massive free-radical damage to DNA and cell membranes.

International Sports Sciences Association co-founder Dr. Sal Arria cautions that many soft tissue injuries occur when failure terminates a repetition in mid-stroke. "When the weight on the bar exceeds the muscle's ability to lift it, something has to give and usually, it's the musculotendonous junction" One of the most important functions of a spotter is to stay alert and keep the bar moving in order to avoid such injuries, according to Arria.

According, to powerlifting legend Fred Hatfield, if fatigue is so great that stabilizers and synergists (which typically tire faster than the prime movers) become too fatigued to allow maintenance of proper form, you're asking for trouble.

3) Potential for overtraining increases

Louie Simmons, well-known coach to many elite-level powerlifters finds that taking sets to failure "has an ill-effect on the central nervous system," which delays recovery. Simmons is noted for producing scores of high-ranked lifters with relatively low-intensity training

4) Regular failed attempts lead to a reduction in a lowering of the Golgi Tendon Organ (GTO) excitation threshold3. Successful lifts which are above what the body is used to will raise the excitation threshold of the Golgi Tendon Organ, while failed attempts tend to lower it. What this means in bodybuilding parlance is that the more often you miss a lift, the more likely it is that you'll miss it again in the future.

Is Training to Failure Necessary?

Clearly, it is not. The overriding concept is that, like all training methods, training to failure is a tool. No tool should be used all the time for all applications. But used judiciously, it can be a useful training method. Any training program which plans for progressive resistance, consistency, and variation is likely to produce success.

Regards,

James

[kungfupanda]

come on dude dont be a dork...you can go to failure and still keep your form. in fact that is better for your mental training too. screw your article. many types of muscle benefit greatly from going to failure. examples are the triceps, forearms, and calves. these are so dense thet they arent harmed by the workout. but its mostly meantal anyway. so there. puss.

[James Bullock]

Thanks for the compliments....

All types of training are beneficial...but doing one thing all the time "IS" counterproductive.

Regards,

James

[terry]

Ya know, upon re-examination I overstated my argument about training to failure in my last post on this thread. (Where is that cup of coffee.) But some interesting conversation has ensued which I would like to comment on. So, let me take another shot at this.

Background: I lift with a power-lifting team that is very much influenced by the guys at Westside, and we've gone back to study with some people like Dave Tate and Louis Simmons. We have about six world champions at the moment and a couple of people holding records, including my wife, so my comments are drawn from that experience. In any case, the guys at http://www.elitefitnesssystems.com have some great information about strength training.

So, here goes: Should you train a single rep max three times a week to failure? Of course not. You'll be thrashed in a week. And anybody who can sucker some poor soul into an eight week program of that just to be a control group for a study out to be shot. That isn't a smart way to train.

However, if you have a goal of increasing a max lift, such as for a competition, then you should have a program that rotates you through lockout (top of the range), lower range, mid-range, full motion and speed reps. If you are lifting seriously, and we're not talking about nautilus guys, then you will be doing a muscle group probably once per week and rotating exercises on a schedule that could go between 4 to 8 weeks. You can't really go for a max more than three weeks in a row before rotating off because you'll be thrashed and get injured.

I was originally thinking about intensity of training, and that involves pushing yourself. For example, if you are doing speed work (10 sets of 3 at 55% of your max) you should time yourself and try to increase your speed. We have several big white boards for this kind of stuff. And, if you are going heavy, you will need a barbaric attitude to get beyond, for example, about 550 on the deadlift. And it will be all out war even then. But, no, you do not do this all the time. To the contrary, you need a lot of rest and recovery (and good nutrition) and also to rotate between speed work, range isolation and max'es--with the max stuff being the smallest part of the overall rotation.

Finally, as far as doing lots of pushups, I have no idea. That has never been a goal I've been interested in. But I bet that you could train a guy to be able to do hundreds and hundreds of pushups and he couldn't bench more than about 275.

[eXcessiveForce]

Just a note,


The original post asked about endurance. Endurance is done by high reps. High reps to failure may be a different story.

It appears that the thread is taking a strength vs. bodybuilding slant rather than strength vs. endurance.

does the above help someone improve their endurance or just their strength?

[kungfupanda]

Originally posted by James Bullock
Thanks for the compliments....

All types of training are beneficial...but doing one thing all the time "IS" counterproductive.

Regards,

James

well i guess i agree with you there obviosly. in fact...back in weight class i injured my shoulder by doing way too much burnouts on the bench press. a sobering experience.

[epimetheus]

You train endurance for your sport by training for your sport. Muscular endurance for doing bench presses is NOT going to carry over to your martial arts. Weight training for sports should be strength based, not endurance based. Boxers don't build up endurance by doing curls and bench presses for ungodly reps, they build up fiber strength by doing high weight, low rep CNS adaptation work with minimal hypertrophy and hitting the bags. Hitting the bags and running type of endurance work. The only endurance you are building up by doing high reps is for doing that exercise for more reps.

[kungfupanda]

Originally posted by epimetheus
You train endurance for your sport by training for your sport. Muscular endurance for doing bench presses is NOT going to carry over to your martial arts. Weight training for sports should be strength based, not endurance based. Boxers don't build up endurance by doing curls and bench presses for ungodly reps, they build up fiber strength by doing high weight, low rep CNS adaptation work with minimal hypertrophy and hitting the bags. Hitting the bags and running type of endurance work. The only endurance you are building up by doing high reps is for doing that exercise for more reps.

screw you. i gained 50 pounds on by bench press directly after i healed. those burouts made me gain tremendously. i just got injured in the process and that was an unexpected accedent. i train the way that works for me. and from what you said it is clear that you dont know jack squat. ALL WORKOUTS WILL CARRY OVER TO YOUR MARTIAL ARTS. and burnouts on the benchpress sure do help your endurance greatly. Repeat: All workouts will carry over to your martial arts. personally i perfer pushups over bench press though.

you should be spanked.

[ryanhall]

All workouts will carry over to your martial arts.

Wrong.

It's called functional strength. It is the difference between being strong and being able to bench press a house. The ability to bench press 300 lbs does not make you a hard puncher by any stretch of the imagination. The same goes for leg pressing and kicking. Though they can be beneficial, machine exercises, bench pressing, etc. does not necessarily add to functional strength, and can actually harm your ability to function in a combative environment.

Allow me to illustrate my point. Muscles are meant to work as a "team" so to speak. When you lift something, it's not just your biceps picking up the object, it's your entire arm. All those isolation exercises that make you look so big in the mirror teach your muscles to work independeltly of one another, decreasing your functional strength. This is the difference between a body builder and a professional running back. The latter may not be able to lift quite as much, but he will run right over the body builder in a game. The difference in "real" strength is huge.

By no means am I downplaying the necessity that is weight training. However, make sure that you're not fooling yourself. It may seem paradoxical, but being strong at the gym doesn't necessarily translate to being strong in general. Someone who is strong in general is both. Just take a look at a bodybuilder who throws his back out taking in the groceries. It happens.