Bodyweight Do push ups give you breast-like pecs?

[Boris Bachmann]

I could see that working pretty well to try to force lean mass retention if most of your work prior to cutting was lots of sets of hypertrophy work in the middle rep zones as it would be a novel stimulus.

And if you're running on very few calories, it's tough to grind out a lot of reps.

 

[Boris Bachmann]

Many bodybuilding coaches nowadays recommended heavy lifting (in terms of % 1RM) for a certain lifts while cutting, especially if the customer is natural

Yeah, I'm guessing it's not a lot of heavy squats and deadlifts though.

 

[watchnerd]

No, it would be the only way for me. I'm not saying you (the general 'you') can't lift heavy and have a (relatively) svelte waist - obviously there are great weightlifters and powerlifters that do it. No one who squats 500+ is going to have a wasp-waist, but it's possible to not have much of a gut if your genetics are such and you are disciplined at the training table. I'm just saying it's probably not something I can do. Heavy lifting stimulates appetite for me, and turning down chow is not my strong suit.

One of the weird dynamics of the competitive pool of weightlifters I'm in (M50-55) is that the all the usual rules that used to apply even as recently as M45-50 seem to be getting broken.

When I was younger, it was definitely chonkier = lift more across all the weight classes.

Something odd is happening now, though, where some of my peers (including me) in the 96-109 kg range are seeing their squat numbers decline, their mid-sections are less tree-like, people are moving down weight classes, absolute totals declining a bit less than squats, but their lifter efficiency (e.g. snatch to squat ratio) has actually increased.

Which is super puzzling because power is supposed to decline faster than strength.

But maybe increased skill, and lighter weight (faster) is making up for that?

Or it could just be a weird statistical fluke because the sample size is getting smaller and smaller due to # of lifters dropping out year by year.

 

[Steve Freides]

No, it would be the only way for me. I'm not saying you (the general 'you') can't lift heavy and have a (relatively) svelte waist - obviously there are great weightlifters and powerlifters that do it. No one who squats 500+ is going to have a wasp-waist, but it's possible to not have much of a gut if your genetics are such and you are disciplined at the training table. I'm just saying it's probably not something I can do. Heavy lifting stimulates appetite for me, and turning down chow is not my strong suit.

This is one of the reasons why the deadlift in PTTP was the lift of choice - it seems to have the least appetite-stimulating effect of the three big powerlifts.

I felt the same as you about squatting when I was in my late 40's and my 50's. But after my early 60's, I've found I can squat and not get so hungry as I used to. It's worth noting that I'm not much of a squatter - my 1RM in competition at age 49 or so, 67.5 kg weight class, raw and no belt, was 110 kg, and I've gotten back to 107.5 kg this year without too much trouble (and the videos are on my YouTube). I'd say it started changing for me at about age 63 or 64, so 3 or 4 years ago, and I started squatting again roughly 18 months ago if memory serves.

-S-

 

[Boris Bachmann]

Something odd is happening now, though, where some of my peers (including me) in the 96-109 kg range are seeing their squat numbers decline, their mid-sections are less tree-like, people are moving down weight classes, absolute totals declining a bit less than squats, but their lifter efficiency (e.g. snatch to squat ratio) has actually increased.

Which is super puzzling because power is supposed to decline faster than strength.

But maybe increased skill, and lighter weight (faster) is making up for that?

Or it could just be a weird statistical fluke because the sample size is getting smaller and smaller due to # of lifters dropping out year by year.

I'm sure it's all those reasons. And probably especially so among those who might have lifted when younger and took up serious OL later in life.
I don't know if we'd see the same dynamics if, for example, elite WLers never retired and continued to lift into old age - it'd be really interesting to see if it played out the same or not.

 

[watchnerd]

I'm sure it's all those reasons. And probably especially so among those who might have lifted when younger and took up serious OL later in life.
I don't know if we'd see the same dynamics if, for example, elite WLers never retired and continued to lift into old age - it'd be really interesting to see if it played out the same or not.

I've actually never heard of an Olympian continuing to compete in weightlifting in old age as a Masters lifter after they retire.

Many continue lifting at workshops or as some kind of promotion, but I haven't heard of any competing as Masters in meets.

Some just quit -- I don't think Dimas has lifted in ages, based on how he looks now.

Most Masters I've met are a mix of people who were good when younger, but not good enough to make it to the elite level, or just total newbs who learned late in life.

 

[Boris Bachmann]

I've actually never heard of an Olympian continuing to compete in weightlifting in old age as a Masters lifter after they retire.

Many continue lifting at workshops or as some kind of promotion, but I haven't heard of any competing as Masters in meets.

Some just quit -- I don't think Dimas has lifted in ages, based on how he looks now.

Most Masters I've met are a mix of people who were good when younger, but not good enough to make it to the elite level, or just total newbs who learned late in life.

I think this is common among high level athletes in general, but probably more so in high-power athletics and I'd guess 99% of Olympians (in all sports) don't continue to train their sport w. much regularity once their glory days are over.

 

[TimothyGander]

But do we have evidence from the military usage of push ups / lack of overhead pressing that it leads to soldiers unable to do things overhead?

I would suggest it's the other way around - without overhead pressing, there's no way to know. Some people who train only pushups may be able to do things overhead, other may be completely unable to do so - it's simply not required (=tested) by this exercise.

Maybe with today's nerd neck / generation-smart-phone soldiers it does?

That's another important issue. I think military strength training programs are pretty useless in general, because they originate in mass conscript warfare of WWII and earlier. Back then, most men would be strong enough from farm or factory work to perform basic military duties, and more strength wouldn't save them from an artillery shell or dysentery anyway. Maintaining discipline and keeping soldiers tired were far important concerns. Pavel recalls some Bulgarian weightlifting coach who made up additional unnecessary workouts for his athletes because "young men with nothing to do find trouble". Especially if the young men in question are armed and hate your guts. Nowadays most recruits are fat and sedentary and suddenly people are surprised that make-work exercise routines don't actually get these people stronger.

 

[Anna C]

I've actually never heard of an Olympian continuing to compete in weightlifting in old age as a Masters lifter after they retire.

Many continue lifting at workshops or as some kind of promotion, but I haven't heard of any competing as Masters in meets.

Chad Vaughn competed at the Howard Cohen American Masters Weightlifting Championships meet that I did last month, and he was an Olympian.

or just total newbs who learned late in life

That's me!

 

[MikeL]

I would suggest it's the other way around - without overhead pressing, there's no way to know. Some people who train only pushups may be able to do things overhead, other may be completely unable to do so - it's simply not required (=tested) by this exercise.

That's another important issue. I think military strength training programs are pretty useless in general, because they originate in mass conscript warfare of WWII and earlier. Back then, most men would be strong enough from farm or factory work to perform basic military duties, and more strength wouldn't save them from an artillery shell or dysentery anyway. Maintaining discipline and keeping soldiers tired were far important concerns. Pavel recalls some Bulgarian weightlifting coach who made up additional unnecessary workouts for his athletes because "young men with nothing to do find trouble". Especially if the young men in question are armed and hate your guts. Nowadays most recruits are fat and sedentary and suddenly people are surprised that make-work exercise routines don't actually get these people stronger.

There is a large amount of hyperbole, assumption and basically falseness here.

Most military fitness regimes around the world are now “functional” in nature, including the majority of assessment. They either test more specific fitness (role related), or basic general fitness for those branches of service who might not need role related, task based fitness.

Recruits these days also tend to pay for fitness coaching and many choose to work out instead of hit a bar.

I don’t mean to be confrontational, but things have moved on. Just because the majority don’t do farm labour does not mean they’re fat and lazy.

 

[TimothyGander]

Most military fitness regimes around the world are now “functional” in nature, including the majority of assessment. They either test more specific fitness (role related), or basic general fitness for those branches of service who might not need role related, task based fitness.

Recruits these days also tend to pay for fitness coaching and many choose to work out instead of hit a bar.

I have commented specifically on use of high-rep push ups in the military and its probable (in my assessment) origin. I didn't mean to imply all armies today actually still use such make-work fitness regimens - although from my own (non-US) military experience and what I've read it still seems to be quite common around the world. However, they were once widely used, they are still used in many military forces and the topic of discussion at hand was whether their use was actually based on their effectiveness.

I also didn't meant to imply that all today's military recruits are fat and sedentary once they join the armed forces. I wanted to compare the average civilian/potential recruit level of fitness and noted it has declined a lot over time.

I don't mean to be confrontational either. I'm aware things have moved on, at least in the US military forces (although the new ACFT still contains push ups, so it would seem make-work really doesn't want to completely die off, even if soldiers and PT instructors know better these days) - but why should that prevent talking about the historical state of things?

 

[Ege]

I read an article about a female competitive Crossfitter who switched to physique / figure / bikini and the first thing she was told by her physique coach was to stop lifting heavy.

Having a tree-trunk waist was great for heavy loads, not for bikini.

In my humble opinion, competitive crossfitter and competitive fitness means, most of the time, indicates someone who is probably on PED’s. No disrespect to anyone. So the advices might not be relevant to naturals.

When you are natural, hitting a ceiling is quite quick. A natural person, with low body fat, will not be able to build an annoying belly by lifting heavy in my opinion even if she/he wants to do so. The abs and the obliques are thin muscles.

I am no expert so please just take this as some one just talking to friends.

 

[Ege]

Physique/bb also does some kind of vacuum training

Vacuum training should be mainly for posing purposes, I think vacuum training will train you, no pun intended, on vacuum, which means you will be able to control your abs better on stage. If they tighten up your belly, it could be only so little that, it won’t be visible in my opinion.

 

[Ege]

I've met habitual benchers who have that problem.

But push ups?

Also -- overhead press isn't quite the same thing as doing 'regular everyday stuff' overhead.

I would have thought the scap motion, serratus action, and reasonable good core/thoracic function would give them healthier shoulders that, even if they didn't have good OHP technique, could do ordinary overhead activities just fine.

I have experience in this. some of the rare areas I have experience. I don’t think push up makes overhead presses more difficult, and it can even help a bit since you learn how to control your scapula etc. push ups did not make my overhead presses worse. However only push ups don’t give you mobility that is required over head. In my case, my push ups are not “bad” but my overhead press form requires special attention for sure. One year of push ups with attention to form, did not improve overhead shoulder mobility. Dead hangs though helps… very slowly but helps.

Bottom line you can be good at push ups but still miss the range of motion for pressses. Best, Ege

 

[MikeL]

I have commented specifically on use of high-rep push ups in the military and its probable (in my assessment) origin. I didn't mean to imply all armies today actually still use such make-work fitness regimens - although from my own (non-US) military experience and what I've read it still seems to be quite common around the world. However, they were once widely used, they are still used in many military forces and the topic of discussion at hand was whether their use was actually based on their effectiveness.

I also didn't meant to imply that all today's military recruits are fat and sedentary once they join the armed forces. I wanted to compare the average civilian/potential recruit level of fitness and noted it has declined a lot.

I don't mean to be confrontational either. I'm aware things have moved on, at least in the US military forces (although the new ACFT still contains push ups, so it would seem make-work really doesn't want to completely die off, even if soldiers and PT instructors know better these days) - but why should that prevent talking about the historical state of things?

Thank you for your clarification.