100 Push-Up Challenge
Sunday, June 12, 2011 at 12:49 When I produced the latest version of SuperFocus, I used “Read War and Peace” as an example of how the method could keep one going during a project which required consistent effort over a period.
I thought I’d better do something similar for “Dreams” so I’ve decided on something a lot harder. I’ve decided to go for the 100 Push-Ups Challenge. You will see from the previous post that I have put it in my Future Reality.
At the age of 67 I don’t expect to go from my current ability to do six push-ups to being able to do one hundred in only six weeks. I will almost certainly take a lot longer and may never get there. But the important thing is to keep going and give it the best try I can.
I’ll give regular reports so you can see how effective Dreams is in keeping the vision going!
Mark Forster
Week 1 Day 1 (repeated for 2nd time)
Set 1: 6 of 6
Set 2: 6 of 6
Set 3: 4 of 4
Set 4: 4 of 4
Set 5: 6 of 5+
First time I’ve been able to do more than the minimum in the last set. But I expected to be able to do a lot more. It is indeed a case of two steps forward, one step back.
Week 1 Day 3 (repeated)
Set 1: 8 of 8
Set 2: 10 of 10
Set 3: 3 of 7
Set 4: 2 of 7
Set 5: 1 of 10+
Failed again, but a marked improvement over last week, when I failed in Set 2. And, as Marcelo says, I’m now a double-digit pushupper!
Week 1 Day 2 (repeated)
Set 1: 6 of 6
Set 2: 8 of 8
Set 3: 6 of 6
Set 4: 6 of 6
Set 5: 7 of 7+
Fantastic improvement!
Week 1 Day 1 (repeated)
Set 1: 6 of 6
Set 2: 6 of 6
Set 3: 4 of 4
Set 4: 4 of 4
Set 5: 5 of 5+
Disappointing that I was no better than on my first try. However I know very well that it’s often a case of two steps forward, one step back, so the real test will be later this week.
Week 1 Day 3
Set 1: 8 of 8
Set 2: 6 of 10
Set 3: 2 of 7
Set 4: 2 of 7
Set 5: 1 of 10+
Same number of pushups in total as Day 2 but leading with 8 instead of 6. I’m pretty sure that if the set of 10 had been first I could have done at least 9. Next week I will repeat Week 1. (Note: I e-mailed Steve Speirs, the author of the program, to ask if it was best to repeat Day 2 or have a go at Day 3 and he replied to have a go at Day 3).
Week 1 Day 2
Set 1: 6 of 6
Set 2: 8 of 8
Set 3: 4 of 6
Set 4: 1 of 6
Set 5: Not attempted
Day 2 to be repeated, but note that I can now do 8 pushups.
Week 1 Day 1
Set 1: 6 of 6
Set 2: 6 of 6
Set 3: 4 of 4
Set 4: 4 of 4
Set 5: 5 of 5+
Reader Comments (76)
Couch, not coach, of course, sorry :) Well, if I am unable to convince you that fitness is a relative concept, I give up. It is not important really.
<<I'm not quite sure what you are warning me against.>>
Oh no, I am not *warning* you against anything! My unskillfulness in English might have cause you to hear a tone of voice that wasn't there.
For me the information on how many push ups are considered excellent is new and it changed my perspective on the 100 push ups challenge. My goal after all is excellent fitness, not 100 pushups. Also, an armoniously developed body is part of my notion of excellent fitness and I -wrongly I can see now- assume that everyone shares this notion. So my intention was to share with you this information supposing you might find value in it. That's all. No *warning* whatsoever!
I am willing to leave these theorical discussions aside and focus on what we both agree is important: achieving excellency in fitness.
SET 2: 10 OF 10
Set 3: 3 of 7
Set 4: 2 of 7
Set 5: 1 of 10+>>
BRAVO!
A thought just crossed my mind:
If you did yesterday 8 P/Us in S1 and 10 in S2, I am positive were you to take a test today, you would do 12 P/Us (at least). That's DOUBLE your initial test only after 6 training sessions!
I think you're probably right - I've had the same thought - and if you look at the program for Week 1 that poses me a problem:
If I were to re-take the test today and did score 12 (or even 11), I would find myself in Column 3 when I repeat Week 1. Column 3 of Week 1 is actually more difficult than Column 2 of Week 2.
I've got to repeat Week 1 anyway. So do you think I'd be better off not taking the test and staying in Column 2, or re-taking the test and going up to Column 3?
<< My unskillfulness in English >>
Your written English is excellent. I couldn't tell that English is not your native language.
At the end of Week 2 there is another exhaustion test that will determine in which column you will continue in Week 3. So no, I wouldn’t take the test now but rather wait until the end of Week 2. What I would do is not to repeat Week1 entirely, this because you have already completed successfully W1 D1 and W1 D2, but repeat Week 1 Day 3 with longer breaks between sets. The pattern I see at your “failed” attempts (there are no failures here, you see how much you have advanced) is that after the second set (the exhausting one, that’s the idea of the second set so that your muscles develop endurance) you are unable to complete the following sets. This is probably because your body has not yet taken away enough lactic acid from the muscles. So take longer breaks, try 3 minutes, even 4 if you need, and see what happens. You might also try moving your arms gently during the breaks, in a sort of huging yourself and opening them alternately, that accelerates the process of taking the lactic acid away. Notice that the instructions say “rest 120 seconds between each SET (longer if required)”. “Longer if required” applies here. Another point in the instructions: “It's also important to be well hydrated before you start each workout.” Are you drinking enough before? Try these and let’s see what happens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I said I wouldn't go on with the theoretical discussion, I feel that I owe you a further effort to explain myself.
<<So are you saying that a person with a high level of general fitness in London will be no better off than a couch potato also from London if they both go up into the high Andes?>>
No, I don't know about that. It may vary according to their genetic constitution:
"There is considerable variability between individuals and between populations in their ability to adjust to the environmental stresses of high mountain regions. Usually, the populations that are most successful are those whose ancestors have lived at high altitudes for thousands of years."
What I am saying is that the person from London (unless he has ancestors from that region) will never be as fit as a local from the high altitude environment in that environment because there is a genetic factor involved:
"A recent study of Tibetan villagers who live their lives at around 15,000 feet has shown that they have 10 oxygen-processing genes not commonly found in lowland populations. The EPAS1 gene is particularly important in adapting to environments with consistently low oxygen pressure."
<<Living at a high altitude and being a pearl diver both strike me as being fitness for a specific situation, not general fitness. >>
I think this is due to the perspective from which you are looking at things: you take your environment/culture as the "general" one and their environment/culture as a "specific situation". For them it might seem the opposite.
The quotes are from the same source I linked to before:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_3.htm
<< For them it might seem the opposite. >>
No doubt, yet what percentage of the human population lives at an altitude high enough to produce genetic differences or are pearl divers? These are exceptions, not the rule.
You are right in this. Yet it does not deny that fitness is specific for an environment, a culture, an activity, etc. Even if the majority of humanity lives at sea level, then what you call "general fitness" is so for sea level, not for every environment. It's like saying that water boils at 100 centigrades no matter what, which is incorrect, or saying that water boils at 100 centigrades in normal conditions (the athmospheric pression at sea level if I am not mistaken). It's just to long to say, but we know "100 centigrades" is not precise.
Look, I am also using right now, when trying to define "excellent fitness" as a goal I am pursuing, generalizations which are no precise and only relative. The tables I brought in a precedent post describe levels (low, average, good, excellent, whatever is written in them) for push ups, but those levels are not absolute, they result from statistics which are valid in western culture in the 21 century. Probably 1000 years ago or 1000 years from now they were/will be different, because the conditions in which people lived or will live were/will be different, using their body more or less. Quite probably if someone meassures what is the average for pull ups in a tribe that lives in trees in the Amazones the results will be very different from the average for people that live in cities in the first world, because the extent in which they use their muscles is different. So I know that when I am pursuing an excellent level for pull ups, "excellent" means in relation to the rest of the population that has been meassured, which translates into the population in the occidental world in the 21st century. That's OK because I want to be fit for my physical, social and cultural surroundings, I don't need to be fit to live in trees, but I don't delude myself thinking this is an absolute meassure representing the total capability for pull ups of humankind anywhere anytime.
So, I insist. Fitness is a relative concept.
You are right in this. Yet it does not deny that fitness is specific for an environment, a culture, an activity, etc. Even if the majority of humanity lives at sea level, then what you call "general fitness" is so for sea level, not for every environment. It's like saying that water boils at 100 centigrades no matter what, which is incorrect, or saying that water boils at 100 centigrades in normal conditions (the athmospheric pression at sea level if I am not mistaken). It's just to long to say, but we know "100 centigrades" is not precise.
Look, I am also using right now, when trying to define "excellent fitness" as a goal I am pursuing, generalizations which are no precise and only relative. The tables I brought in a precedent post describe levels (low, average, good, excellent, whatever is written in them) for push ups, but those levels are not absolute, they result from statistics which are valid in western culture in the 21 century. Probably 1000 years ago or 1000 years from now they were/will be different, because the conditions in which people lived or will live were/will be different, using their body more or less. Quite probably if someone meassures what is the average for pull ups in a tribe that lives in trees in the Amazones the results will be very different from the average for people that live in cities in the first world, because the extent in which they use their muscles is different. So I know that when I am pursuing an excellent level for pull ups, "excellent" means in relation to the rest of the population that has been meassured, which translates into the population in the occidental world in the 21st century. That's OK because I want to be fit for my physical, social and cultural surroundings, I don't need to be fit to live in trees, but I don't delude myself thinking this is an absolute meassure representing the total capability for pull ups of humankind anywhere anytime.
So, I insist. Fitness is a relative concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_chi_chuan
And yet another different approach (well, this one you know well) practiced traditionally in the second most populated country in the world (India, 1.21 billion):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga
The population of Europe (857 million), USA (310 million), Canada (31 million), and South America (385 million) together equals 1.58 billion.
So, which approach is the "general" and which one the "exception" ?
Still another idea you may want to try for the push ups program if longer breaks don't work or you already tried that, to avoid going back to stages you already completed: create intermediate stages so that the progress will be more gradual. That would be:
Week 1 Day 2.1
Set 1: 7
Set 2: 9
Set 3: 7
Set 4: 7
Set 5: max (at least 9)
What do you think?
"General Fitness" & "Specific Fitness"
I reviewed the thread and *SAW* to what extent I went to defend a position that cannot be defended, simply because I had a wrong concept that was never forced to review, until now.
Of course there is general fitness, as well as specific fitness! (Mark defined both well in a precedent comment).
I am ashamed at myself... and at the same time laughing at my stubbornness. I was not aware I have SUCH a stubborn head :)
I shall henceforth pay very close attention to that trait of mine!
Please excuse me for the waste of time I might have caused you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meantime...
Pushups Week 4 Day 1
S1: 18 of 18
S2: 22 of 22
S3: 16 of 16
S4: 16 of 16
S5: 25 of 25+
Rather than beating myself I am learning about a few things I need to improve. The main one is to *listen better to what other people are saying*.
I got entrenched in my positions about the concept of fitness being culturally dependent and the 100 pushups challenge not being the best approach to achieve fitness, and completely failed to hear what is Mark's main motive: <<Bear in mind that most of the point of the 100 Pushup Challenge for me is to show how the Dreams methods can "keep one going during a project which requires consistent effort over a period.">> For his purpose, it is very convenient: simple, well structured, measurable and does demand a "consistent effort over a period".
On the positive side, I’ve got a very nice feedback for my English :)
I’ll stop reporting here about my daily routines, it is pointless, but I’ll keep an eye on Mark’s progress and report my exhaustion tests at the end of each completed “week” (there is one at the end of the fourth and fifth weeks, as well as the final test, although as soon as I’ll reach an excellent level for pushups and situps I’ll move on to the next routines - for my purpose it makes more sense).
What about your second repetition of W1D2 and W1D3? Did you do them this week?
Laurent
Another option is start with standing pushups. Stand in front of a wall with your feet about a foot from the base, and your hands on the wall at shoulder level, then do the push-up move. That way you can get more reps at less weight. Doing only one or two reps at too high a weight can stress the muscles too much. Also, you need to do several reps to activate and use all the fibers in the muscles. Ages ago, the therapist told Dad that 15 reps to total exhaustion was about right.
Continue increasing the difficulty using the same method. Next might come push-ups on the floor from the knees only, then full-body push-ups, then raise your feet onto a chair, then you might even progress to such exotic beasts as push-ups clapping your hands at full-extension and one-armed push-ups!
http://www.konkura.com/challenge/?uid=eb63968a-319e-426d-aebb-f68ff29d2fca&t=The+Push+Ups+In+One+Minute+Challenge
Do you reckon your new challenge is easier or more difficult than the old one? (I'm talking about the process here, not the result).
I began this program 03 months ago.
I made 60 pumps before beginning him(it).
I specify that I make full pumps amplitude (tense arms and breast on the ground).
I have redo my max he has there about days, and: 100 pumps.
I leave you the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndj01XyOvn0
My favorite is push-ups on ball and then Exercise Ball Pull-In burns chest.
Keep sharing more!