If some people measure their workouts in the total quantity of weight moved...

>will shield roughly the same result

your and idiot

i do see SPRINTers with huge legs trough!
I dont lift weights, I just do bodyweight or sometimes weighed calisthenics.

No, I am not.

In a pushup your own body is the weight you fucking numbnuts.
That's why it's a "body weight" exercise.

sprinters lift. i was a long jumper and i squatted a few times a week. also a shit ton of cleaning.

how bout I push you up u punk bitch

>No, I AM talking about the total,the overall quantity of weights that was, troughout the situation, finally moved.
Not how it works, you retard. Force A is going to be different than force B, even if you do equivalent calculated work.

As for the pushup question, no because the leverage points of different pushup positions changes the amount of force performed to move any given weight. IF you manage to do handstand pushups, you've reached the maximum amount of weight you can move without adding anymore because you're moving roughly your entire bodyweight. But even then, the leverage mechanics between a handstand pushup and a bench press are not equivalent, so you may or may not be able to bench the same amount of weight

ever heard of weighted push ups?

i'll push yer face in m8

>weight is not weight if it's your own
Do you even Psyhics? Gravity makes it count as weight that works your muscles.

Yes, but you're not doing weighted handstand pushups with enough added weight to matter for anything

you mean weighted handstand pushups do not amount to anything?

what the hell are you talking about? leverage mechanics are similar if not identical betweet push ups and weighted push ups. so the question is if you do more push ups, will it yield similar results as doing less weighted push ups? i said no, because push ups will not trigger hypertrophy after some time, no matter how much you did them.

>shield
OP is a faggot

>leverage mechanics are similar if not identical betweet push ups and weighted push ups
Yes, but OP asked if doing enough pushups will yield results similar to barbell lifting, which it won't. Even if you did weighted pushups with 50 kgs on your back, the leverage is not going to be the same as doing a bodyweight + 50kg bench press.

this is where you are wrong. push ups work the same muscles as bench press. if you add weight you can simulate the force the weighted barbell applies. the only problem is how much your back can take.

>push ups work the same muscles as bench pres
At a different angle and different range of motion, which is where the leverage point comes into play since that changes the required amount and direction of applied force.

you can't weasel your way out of it. it's like saying you can't build legs doing weighted lunges. i'm not saying they are better or worse than squats, they are not the same movement mechanically, but they are similar enough and work similar muscles, and guess what, your legs will grow if you do them.

You are right friend a guy that does quick 20 kg benches can easily do a 1rm of 200 kg bench please test your logical theory with no spotters ty

I never denied that muscles can't grow from weighted pushups. I am saying that weighted pushups != barbell bench presses because of the wide mechanical differences. The argument isn't about just building muscle, it's about building muscle in comparable manners, which means that the pushups will always be inferior due to these mechanics.

I did not say that.
I meant the result in the muscle notwhistanding that,in factual reality, it can't be done at once.

So you would develop the muscles of a guy that benches 200kg by doing 20kg in quick succession? If lifting was that easy only the retarded would not be shredded

Yes, you would.
you would need 100 reps,not 10,trough.

sprinters don't train by just sprinting bro

first of all, there are no wide mechanical differences. there are slight differences. also weighted push ups are not inferior to bench pressing. as i said, the problem occurs once your back can't handle the weight. other problem that comes to mind is that bench press is easier to load and unload. that said, you could claim bench press is superior, otherwise they are both great exercises.

youtu.be/JdDQAs-bd4Y
this is OP

>there are no wide mechanical differences. there are slight differences.
False. In a standard pushup position, the position changes the angle at which the scapulae must rotate forcing the same muscles to be worked in different proportion to maintain balance (a huge part of noob gains comes from the CNS properly activating stabilizing muscles). Further, the center of mass changes significantly between to top and bottom of the rep in basically any pushup position, changing the amount of work done to move the weight, which is exactly why different pushup positions (regardless of added weight) provide different degrees of difficulty.

On the bench press, the system's CoM changes too, but this change is focused more in relation to the arms rather than the torso when compared to pushups. It's not simply a matter of how much your back can take because the back and support a lot of fucking weight. It's the fact that a weighted pushup is mechanically disadvantageous to a bench press, and the greater the mechanical advantage, the more weight can be moved which leads to greater gains.

Mechanics are the whole reason why competition powerlifting form is the way it is.

>implying more weight equals more gains
>implying leg press>squats
>back can support a lot of fucking weight
yeah but not when you are lying parallel to the floor. you can't lift more weight on flies, does that mean they are inferior? compare snatch to clean also. i just can't argue with you any more. you have your opinions, i have mine.

Heard of planche push-ups??

Youre not even arguing on similar points anymore. The leg press isn't relevant because it's a machine movement. Flies are predominantly isolation, not compound. You can argue opinions, but you're talking about shit that's not even factual or relevant at this point

Bodyweight is still horizontally distributed, changing the CoM and the required force

Will certainly not yield the same results. Are the results of one better than the other? That depends on what you want. For strength gains you aren't just training strength, but also the neural adaptation. Essentially neurons are 'plastic' they can become more and less resistant to firing if they are activated in sequence with other neurons.

If two neurons are activated at the same time,
generally the one with the weaker connection will 'learn' from the other (through a complex biomedical process to strengthen its connection from the postsynaptic neuron.
So when it comes to strength training, recruiting larger amounts of muscle fiber (strength training) strengthens more neural connections in a process called neural adaptation.
This is responsible for what percent of your muscle fibers you can recruit quickly for lifting.

So no on strength gains.

When it comes to fitness, recruiting more muscle fibers tear more muscle fibers, which results in muscle fiber repair and larger muscles.

Time under tension is also a factor in the amount of muscle fibers recruited. It is currently hypothesized (and backed up by data) that training at a range of 6-8 repetitions at maximum effort builds more muscle mass than 10-12 or 15+ repetitions at maximum effort.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3057313
for the interested

because the human body isnt a math equation

how is that an argument? so what if it's machine? so what if it's isolation? do your muscles still move weight? do they know? you're just saying you can build more muscle with bench pressing, which is false. that's all. bye.

Do you really need to be explained how machine assisted movements and isolation movements are resultantly different than unsupported compound movements?

Jesus Christ. Are you 14?

>that's all. bye.
I guess you are

Your muscles respond differently to different stimuli.

>lift 10lbs 100 times
result: gain endurance

>lift 20lbs 50 times
result: gain muscle mass

>lift 50lbs 20 times
result: gain strength

so what happens when you combine them both.

After im done with for example chest, throw in one more set with 20% weight of my 1rm. Is this gonna benefit me or is it a meme.

One set probably won't do much. A bigger muscle isn't necessarily a stronger one, but an already strong one gaining mass will increase strength. I do main lifts for strength and assistance lifts for mass.

>if not; WHY not?
Because thresholds.

An elevator is rated for a max load 10t:
>keeping it loaded with 5t for 10 trips is totally the same as loading it with 50t for 1, right?

The body is much more complicated than an elevator, muscles use a variety of metabolic processes and blend them all the time - and that's just one tiny aspect of it. Check out some literature on substrate utilization.