• HEALTH & RECOVERY
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules Thread Directory 1 Thread Directory 2
    Mindfulness Links Addiction & Mind
    Sober Living Partner Program (SLiPP)
  • H&R Moderators: streaM Freak

Combining pushups and pullups

All muscles 'stabilize' in some sense or another during all lifts (or you're doing it wrong!), but the lats are not as relevant to pushups as front delts, pecs and tris. Slim is doing a proper 'push/pull' split, something that I kinda follow myself (upper push day, legs, upper pull day; rinse/repeat is the best approach I've found for myself)

And thnx it's good to be around :D Had to take some time off for myself (good things!) but bl will always be a homebase of mine ;p
 
SirTophamHat said:
^ lol, stabilizing what? wouldn't your spinal erectors, rectus abdominis and oblique muscles be the prime stabilizers? sure you can flex any muscle whenever you want, but that fact alone doesn't implicate your lats in pushups. why don't you give us a source?

the point here is that pull ups primarily work the back while pushups primarily work the chest (and biceps, triceps respectively) so the two exercises are quite good in tandem, they do not overlap muscle groups. saying that they do is only going to cause confusion... slimvictor has a good programme going.

ps: nice to see you bmxxx, i thought you had left us.
Click to expand...


Go check out what some of the strongest benchers on the planet are doing to improve their bench press numbers, and you'll find that they focus on rows and other heavy back movements.

This is done in order to assist the pecs, triceps and delts, which are obviously the prime movers (and shouldn't even need mention in your case, since you apparently claim to know what you're doing). Again, opposing muscle groups work in tandem, in that if you strengthen one, it can assist the other to more improve more efficiently that if you ignore it.
 
SirTophamHat said:
You're welcome victor, good luck/have fun with your exercises.

Wolfmans_BrothEr, do you have a source for that or are you just repeating what you've heard? By using an isometric contraction you can activate almost any muscle during almost any exercise. It doesn't necessarily follow that you're going to gain any significant hypertrophy or strength by doing so. For someone who is looking to beef up their back, would you tell them to do push ups? No, of course not...
Click to expand...

yea my source is my college or any reputable exercise book. and by experience. do u really need a legit source for this?? ok, check out the book "anatomy of modern bodybuilding" or you could do a google search with a plethora of info backing my claim. http://www.menshealth.com/deltafit/are-you-doing-pushups-wrong

when did I ever say pushups were adequate for building ur lats? believe the word I used was barely. pushups will also work your tri's, bi's, and even ur abs, but are push ups an adequate workout for any of these muscles? no

your calling bullshit on ppl when you obv have no idea what your talking about. its not confusion, its anatomy. also I dnt think theres much confusion since in the op he seemed to already know, I just reinforced it.

nickels has the right idea. almost every freeweight/cable exercise uses multiple core/secondary/stabilizing muscles. look at pull overs, those will tear the pecs and lats just about equally, and theyre a great workout which is often overlooked
 
Last edited:
nickels: bench press and push ups/press ups are different exercises. lats definitely play more of a role in benching, esp. powerlifting style.

wolfman bro: i'm not here to purposefully instigate. i'm sorry if my tone was confrontational. i'm just saying that by going on and on about how the lats are a stabilizer in the push up movement is just missing the point. yes, they do stabilize, but it is such a minor component of the movement that focusing on the fact is irrelevant. and yeah, i have absolutely no idea what i'm talking about, my certification has clearly expired.
 
^^^going on and on? I said one thing about it, only bc its true. its a known fact that an exercise will be easier the better you can stabilize the weight, which is why secondary muscles, ESPECIALLY core muscles (which just so happen to include the latissimus dorsi), are so important. which is why your lats come into play when working chest....that's physics dude (have you ever seen a crane or backhoe try to haul extreme weight? bc if it wasn't able to stabilize that weight at its core it would topple over).

again, read my post, i said push ups BARELY, work lats, and the ONLY reason I brought it up is bc the op asked it.....and yea u can say bench and push ups are two dif exercises but they have the same range of motion and work the same muscle group. the ONLY difference between bench and push ups is one is on your back and the other is face up, and one relies primarily on body weight while the other allows you to add as much weight as you desire

fundamentally there is little difference between a push up and a bench press

and sorry dude but your certification doesn't mean you know anything about anatomy. im not saying YOU don't, but to receive an nsca certification means your good at studying their material. since you pay a shitload of $ for the textbooks and then the test, means you meet THEIR criteria, which isn't necessarily an overall understanding of bodybuilding/anatomy... which is the exact reason why an nsca certification doesn't mean nearly as much now as it did back in '08.

regardless of your accolades, you didn't know that push ups/chest press work lats, which is reason enough to call bullshit on anything you say... im not trying to b a dick dude but your questioning this when its general knowledge, ESPECIALLY for someone whos nsca certified. this could've all been avoided if you did even the slightest bit of research, furthermore youre arguing semantics when my answer was solely to answer the op's questions, not add irrelevant info....read the op then read my response and youll see theyre in line with eachother
 
i can see your jimmies are rustled dude. i wasn't trying to target you specifically or anything (yes i may have mentioned you by name but it was all of the previous posts in this thread that got me in here). again, my bad. your last bit is funny though, about arguing semantics. my original intent in posting in this thread was to attempt to get off of the semantics about whether or not the back is involved in pressing motions. obviously it is involved to a degree, let's leave it at that. it's cool though. i'm not gonna be posting in this thread any more so don't worry about my opinion. involving the link to my dubious cert was just a joke btw. i don't put any faith into pieces of paper.
 
^^lol no worries I was kinda drunk when I wrote that, and I kinda thought that cert was fake but I figured I had said enough...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top