This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The result of the proposal was This pretty much defines no consensus. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 10:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the page to push up and added a redirect at press up-- TyGuy92 01:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Press up → Push up
The picture of the Marines doing/attempting pushups seems to be causing problems. Since he's not doing the pushup correctly, then he is merely attempting it. Perhaps, we could simply find another uncopyrighted image of someone doing a pushup to avoid the confusion. Zepheus 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be under Pushup? Anecodtally, I live in the US and I've never heard them called this. Moreover, Google has more hits for pushups by a factor of 5, and a lot of the pressup hits are on .co.uk sites. If common useage is the measuring stick, this article should be under pushups. -Unknown
Regarding the picture. Marines do not do press ups they do push ups.
I agree that it should be called Push Ups. I think we should make a name decision. -- WiiVolve 15:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be taken into account that (as stated in the article) the term "push up" predates "press-up" by several decades? Further, US speakers of English outnumber all other nationalities. I know the Wikipedia policy on US-Commonwealth English, but be sensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.249.50 ( talk) 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The article DIDn't mention pushups using the knuckles, which hurt more, NOR the two-finger pushup as Bruce Lee do.
which muscles are exercised by press ups? it mentions triceps in alternate version, but not which ones are normally exercised. -Unknown
Like in the old exercise article, the picture of the marines has again been altered without explanation. I have repetetively explained the criticism, in that the central figure is not holding a proper pushup. Because of this, I have reverted the change. I agree that a proper pushup should be displayed, and be affirmative. If so, please find a different picture, as this picture is not a good display of it. Tyciol 13:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe one of the pictures on [http://www.ehow.com/how_3190_proper-push-.html this site?]
Comment: The US AirForce defines a push-up as elbow lock-out[straight] to 90 degree bend and straight again. I believe this correctly describes the essence of a push-up. Whether your back is bowed slightly one way or another is irrelevant. After all the excellent video-clip of the Hindu push-up shows extreme and deliberate motion in this regard. A perfectly straight back may look more aesthetically pleasing to some but there is no physiologic basis to recommend it as 'proper' form. In fact, it is normal [and better biomechanics] to have some lumbar lordosis whether standing or doing push-ups. Ask any spine surgeon who fuses backs -- a straight lumbar spine leads to a very bad result. I believe one 'bad form' point that should be avoided: do not let your body drop such that your upper arms rise behind your chest. Letting your upper arms angle backwards can place undue strain on the shoulder leading to impingement and joint pain.
Just added some basic test values for push-ups :) -- Judas Iscariot 09:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've moved it here for now, pending a source (see WP:V). — Matt Crypto 23:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Press-ups are to be done with a straight back and to be lowered until one's head falls within six inches of the ground. These values are how many repetitions are done in a minute. These gradings are for men of the primary age(15-30):
I am going to remove the new "civilian" charts. They are only based on the University of Buffalo's Physical Fitness Test. I hardly think that one University's physical fitness test should apply to all people. In addition, the grading levels are way to easy to achieve and are subpar. A better chart would be one of the US Government's Physical Fitness Test for High Schools. REscano 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a separate page would be more appropriate for military standards. The basic standards for the British Army are here :
http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/RegularArmy/Requirements/GetFitForTheArmy/Officer/sandhurst.htm
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.76.105.142 (
talk)
12:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been a chubby guy all my life until a few months ago when I said enough is enough and started exercising a lot and controlled exactly what I eat. Things are going pretty well (I seem to have the ability to gain muscle very fast) and now I'm finally able to do correct pushups for the first time. But here's the thing: at about 5-10 pushups my spine really starts to hurt in the abdomen area and I'm forced to stop. My upper body muscles could take a lot more but it feels like my spine will snap. I didn't find any information about what kind of stress pushups put on the back and spine in the article so I'm wondering if such info should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.30.78 ( talk) 09:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, should definitely be there. Tip: Try practicing by going to the lower position with a fist of air left between yourself and the floor and keep that position for 30 sec, 60 sec, 90 sec until you can do 300 sec. This strengthens your lower back musculature. Great you started, keep it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.232.209.152 ( talk) 17:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Name: Noone actually calls push ups press ups, its ridiculous to have them under this title simply because it was the original one chosen.
Picture: Why is the main picture of someone doing a push up incorrectly? I understand that the text underneath tells people that its wrong, but it seems backwards to have the salient picture on the page showing NOT what to do.
Tables: These numbers in these tables are far too low. To say that a male aged 20-29 being able to do >35 is excellent is quite ridiculous. I got down and tried just then and could do 37 and I havent been training, playing sport or doing anything that could contibute. To call someone of my standard excellent is ridiculous. The numbers in the test section of the talk seem far more suitable.
I think perhaps we need to reexamine the chart that rates people based on how many pushups you can do. Its figures are a little low. While I would like to believe that if I can do 38 push-ups, I am in excellent health, that's simply not true. However, some of the charts out there have somewhat high figures as well. One fitness book targeted at teens that I own rates those who can do 46 or more push-ups in a minute as excellent. I believe that this figure is probably more accurate than other analyses. We should find a good chart with at least plausible figures. As sort of a benchmark, I am 16 years old, have been working out for ~2 years, can bench my own weight, and consider myself at least reasonably strong. I can do 49 push-ups in a minute. While I would rate someone who can do 38+ push-ups in a minute as being in good health, I probably would not call them strong (unless they weighed a ton). We also need to change the article title to push-up. We're not all Brits, you know. - Peteweez 01:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Such a generalized chart is mediocre because it does not account for weight differences. It's easier for a lighter individual to do a given number of push ups than it is for heavier people. Shawnc 07:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The existing charts on the page from the Army etc are very unclear. Nothing explains actually what the figures are. I assume they're number of push-ups but this isn't actually stated anywhere. EAi 00:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Do a one arm push up. On the way up, clap hands with the free hand in mid air, then return to the one arm position without letting the free hand touch the ground. For increased difficulty, use less than five digits. I call it the one arm clap push up. (Original research) Shawnc 08:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the caption under the picture is snarky. And HILARIOUS. 24.175.10.61 04:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Please provide sources for this sort of thing:
Otherwise it's too easy for someone to add themselves. — Matt Crypto 10:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: I corrected the amount of pushups needed to pass the US Army Physical Fitness Test. It takes a score of 60% in each event, so it would require 42 push-ups for 17-21, et cetera...
-AussieYank
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.24.116.2 (
talk)
02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all , in the real propper pushup (unlike the ones shown in any of the images)
the arms are tucked in 45 degrees from the torso , this is done to reduce the wear and tear on the shoulder joint and rotator cuff muscles , and be able to use the triceps and front deltroids evently with the chest , people who train at home soley with bodyweight should select excersises that train as many muscles as possible because they otherwise won't be able to train the front deltroids untill they can do harder variation of presses like dips. and you can't do more repetitions with this technique , sicne due to the reduced levrage you life more weight each rep , so it gets down to using your chest and triceps for the same intensity as normal pushups , but getting more training for your time.
actually that's the same technique athletes (not body builders however) bench press as well.
also I want to reccomend adding a section about one armed pushups , and planche pushups thath ave been gettnig a lot of attention in many bodyweight training forums on the internet lately , they are pretty impressive and make the article much better by making it more interesting to read.
many wikipedia articles are so plain that I literally fall asleep or get extreamly drowsy when I have to read them as a source of information.
by the way: sorry for my bad english , that's why I'm asking someone else to write it , however I might write any imformation you need about it here if anyone would like. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
88.155.41.110 (
talk)
18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
I thought martial artists did pushups on their first 2 knuckles of each hand to 1) deaden the nerves there 2)strengthen the muscles in the same line as the punch/strike 3) get used to having pressure / a way to simulate hitting something on those 2 knuckles and aligning your wrists properly. That was only what I imagined though - I don't have any experience. Tkjazzer 21:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
They do indeed, though I'm not sure if those are the correct reasons or not. 75.83.141.204 ( talk) 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes they do, but almost all reasons are wrong - on knuckles only leads to injuries unless you totally destroy the nerve cells. This is accomplished after you have destroyed the tendons runnig over your knuckles base - e.g. you cant even pick up a cup of coffee anymore as these tendons control your finger movement. Martial artists train a lot of bad stuff, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.232.209.152 ( talk) 18:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
There should be a section explaining all the benefits of doing push ups. Son of Kong 03:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that this is interesting (to a point), why just showcase the U.S. military's fitness levels? Why not the U.K.'s or Mexico's or even Canada's military fitness levels? It seems somewhat crass to automatically utilize one nations definition, especially considering that Wikipedia is a global initiative. Matthew Cadrin 05:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The animation of a press-up should be removed. The animation is very distracting while trying to read the text to the left of it, there is no pause button, and as stated in the caption, he is using poor form anyway. I will remove this picture. Please respond here as well as copying your responce on my personal talk page. -- TyGuy92 01:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Your rationale for posting poor pictures is that it is better than nothing. I could not disagree with that more. If Wikipedia is truly aiming for quality, it would not have poor examples with captions saying "Ignore this, ignore that." Or "Even though he's doing it wrong, this is sorta what is looks like." It's like your gym teacher demonstrating it, screwing it up, and saying "Even though I can't do it, you get the idea." I would really appreciate it if you would leave the pictures off. If it means so much to you to have a picture on there, take a picture of yourself doing a proper pushup, waive any copyright claims, and post it.
Also, has there ever been a serious debate over animations playing alongside the article? I for one find it extremely distracting. Perhaps pausing the amimation with a link leading to a playing version of it? Several times (not on the Wikipedia) I've gone to a site that annoying ads that keep catching your eye when your trying to read and decided just to use a different site. I don't beleive even an informative animation is much better.
-- TyGuy92 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that just isn't right. You should not have inaccurate information. We're not talking about perfection, we're talking about correct or incorrect. The picture is misleading, not to mention the fact that it just isn't professional to have a picture like that on there. And your little comment about "I could say the same about you" is just childish. Come on. I'm not saying I want a picture on there, I'm just saying it shouldn't be an inaccurate one. For an administrator, you're awfully petty and not very motivated for change, it could even be said that you are afraid of it. Going back to our terminology debate, you don't care about the vast majority of people who use push up instead of press up, you just want to keep using your Queen's English that nobody else in the world uses. Both Canada and the U.S. use push up. Nobody in these two nations uses the phrase press up. The U.S. and Canada combined have 350 million people. The U.K. has around 60 mil. I can tell that you are just a selfish bastard who doesn't care about the vast majority or people in the world, just your little island. Think about it.-- TyGuy92 22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
p.s. I'm not sure if you're aware of it or not, but the voting to move the article to a different name was initiated by someone seperate from me months ago and had been at a stand still, with several times more votes in favor of moving the page than against it, when I took it upon myself to move it as a clear consensus had been arrived upon. It wasn't until I moved it that Matt stepped in and started blocking my actions, as I've stated, most likely because he wanted his British dialect to reign superior over the masses. Kind of elitist, isn't it? Anyway, since I moved the article and questioned why, I've been getting dismissive responses from Matt, and apparantly this topic hads gained some sort of notoriety as more votes started rolling in recently. Look at the dates on the votes. I had every right to move the article.-- TyGuy92 01:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
See http://youtube.com/watch?v=X79LlPDmpOM and http://www.aikidofaq.com/practice/a_section31.html
They're intended to strengthen the wrists for the various wrist locks and throws performed in Aikido. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbsears ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Chaturanga Dandasana is an important part of Surya Namaskara, the Sun Salutation sequence of yoga postures. It has some similarities to a push up, but the elbows are held in fairly close. See http://www.yogajournal.com/poses/469. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbsears ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It's very likely that this or the "Dand" or the Surya Nemaskar were the original exercises on which the pushup was based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsunlin ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's ignore all previous debate. Now someone tell me why the WikiPEDIA article is called "Press up" while wikiMedia has it listed as "Push up"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulumonkey ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It should be Push-Up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backvoods ( talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph on planche push ups said "In this variation, the exercise is the equivalent of a person lifting 80% of his or her body weight." This doesn't seem to make sense to me (why wouldn't it be 100%?), is uncited, and I can find no evidence for it on the Google, so I removed it. — Sam 63.138.152.238 ( talk) 14:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The animation of that old guy doing a push-up is bad. His feet are spread apart and his palms are badly positioned, also his back doesn't seem right. I'd upload one of me doing it in proper form but I don't have the equipment. Now what's all of your excuses for not uploading a good one? You're probably obese nerds. Oh well. 63.225.247.82 ( talk) 01:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we just leave the title as "press up" and then use the term "push up" in the article itself. Seems like a fair compromise? 202.67.76.202 ( talk) 14:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Push up is clearly the more common word used. I never even heard press up before today.-- Fire 55 ( talk) 05:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below (I say push-up). Dekimasu よ! 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Press-up → Push-up — It's been 2 years since the last straw poll was taken regarding the move of this article, consensus can change. 168.7.247.217 ( talk) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I invite everyone to look over the Manual of Style, specifically:
“ | If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used. | ” |
Emphasis is added on early, this article is no longer in an early stage. As for the compelling reason to change let's look at what the Manual says on national ties:
“ | An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. | ” |
So I guess it's been decided that this article really has no national ties. But what is the intent behind this section of the Manual anyways?
“ | This is primarily intended to avoid the (unlikely) case in which an article that will be overwhelmingly read by one nationality has been written in another national dialect. | ” |
Isn't that what is essentially happening now? This term is only used in the UK, with push-up being used in every other English speaking country in the world. This term appears to be in the minority in the UK itself [2] [3] This is definitely resulting in the article being read overwhelming "in another national dialect."
I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We should be following longstanding intent not going by the longstanding letter of a guideline. Rules should be broken to improve the encyclopedia. 168.7.247.217 ( talk) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. The criterion is "if an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety". The argument that "I've never heard" another variety of English is not valid, nor is that it is less popular than another variety of English. — Matt Crypto 06:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
“ | International scope: Wikipedia is not country-specific | ” |
“ | Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. | ” |
168.7.249.244 ( talk) 16:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
“ | Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. | ” |
Not to mention the intent behind the specific guideline is to avoid unnecessary national ties- exactly the opposite of what the policy is being used for in this article. I can't see how "I got here first, so I'm not going to allow anyone to make the article more accessible to international audience" is acceptable in this ridiculous case. Don't be fooled into reading the guideline by the letter, the entire purpose of it is accessibility. 168.7.255.158 ( talk) 05:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Press-up → Push-up — It's been 2 years since the last straw poll was taken regarding the move of this article, consensus can change. 168.7.247.217 ( talk) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The other day I made a small edit that could have struck a nice compromise in the nomenclature debate. As I expected, Matt Crypto reverted it back without citing a reason. Frankly, I think she has too much time on her hands. But moving on, currently the opening sentence reads "A press-up, also known as a push-up, is a common strength training exercise...". As these discussions have shown, the term push up is far more common, more established, more widely-recognized, and has decades of precedence over press up. The British term maintains its dominance in this article based on the flimsy pretext that it was originally authored this way, and that its original author continues to monitor edits like a paranoid hawk. If this same exercise were known as a "flibbywibble" in New Zealand, and the article was originally authored by a New Zealander, would changing it to something more widely understood even be up for debate?
Currently, the article makes no mention of the apparently vast difference in usage of the terms, and that opening sentence gives the impression press up is the dominant term. I suggest the first sentence be changed to "A press-up, more commonly known as a push up, is a common...". Press-up remains the dominant term in the body of the article (to satisfy the few hardheads) but the article acknowledges that push up is, in reality, the dominant expression. Perhaps another note could be added to the "History" section that more specifically explains the regionality of the terms, to more clearly show that one term is more widely understood, but I have no interest in doing so myself and likely facing the wrath of people with ill-conceived priorities. And no, I'm not starting an edit war. I'm not going to change it again. My original edit was to test my theory that the article was being monitored. Aoystreck ( talk) 22:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Source added. End of discussion. 168.7.247.212 ( talk) 02:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The result of the proposal was This pretty much defines no consensus. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 10:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the page to push up and added a redirect at press up-- TyGuy92 01:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Press up → Push up
The picture of the Marines doing/attempting pushups seems to be causing problems. Since he's not doing the pushup correctly, then he is merely attempting it. Perhaps, we could simply find another uncopyrighted image of someone doing a pushup to avoid the confusion. Zepheus 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be under Pushup? Anecodtally, I live in the US and I've never heard them called this. Moreover, Google has more hits for pushups by a factor of 5, and a lot of the pressup hits are on .co.uk sites. If common useage is the measuring stick, this article should be under pushups. -Unknown
Regarding the picture. Marines do not do press ups they do push ups.
I agree that it should be called Push Ups. I think we should make a name decision. -- WiiVolve 15:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be taken into account that (as stated in the article) the term "push up" predates "press-up" by several decades? Further, US speakers of English outnumber all other nationalities. I know the Wikipedia policy on US-Commonwealth English, but be sensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.249.50 ( talk) 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The article DIDn't mention pushups using the knuckles, which hurt more, NOR the two-finger pushup as Bruce Lee do.
which muscles are exercised by press ups? it mentions triceps in alternate version, but not which ones are normally exercised. -Unknown
Like in the old exercise article, the picture of the marines has again been altered without explanation. I have repetetively explained the criticism, in that the central figure is not holding a proper pushup. Because of this, I have reverted the change. I agree that a proper pushup should be displayed, and be affirmative. If so, please find a different picture, as this picture is not a good display of it. Tyciol 13:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe one of the pictures on [http://www.ehow.com/how_3190_proper-push-.html this site?]
Comment: The US AirForce defines a push-up as elbow lock-out[straight] to 90 degree bend and straight again. I believe this correctly describes the essence of a push-up. Whether your back is bowed slightly one way or another is irrelevant. After all the excellent video-clip of the Hindu push-up shows extreme and deliberate motion in this regard. A perfectly straight back may look more aesthetically pleasing to some but there is no physiologic basis to recommend it as 'proper' form. In fact, it is normal [and better biomechanics] to have some lumbar lordosis whether standing or doing push-ups. Ask any spine surgeon who fuses backs -- a straight lumbar spine leads to a very bad result. I believe one 'bad form' point that should be avoided: do not let your body drop such that your upper arms rise behind your chest. Letting your upper arms angle backwards can place undue strain on the shoulder leading to impingement and joint pain.
Just added some basic test values for push-ups :) -- Judas Iscariot 09:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've moved it here for now, pending a source (see WP:V). — Matt Crypto 23:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Press-ups are to be done with a straight back and to be lowered until one's head falls within six inches of the ground. These values are how many repetitions are done in a minute. These gradings are for men of the primary age(15-30):
I am going to remove the new "civilian" charts. They are only based on the University of Buffalo's Physical Fitness Test. I hardly think that one University's physical fitness test should apply to all people. In addition, the grading levels are way to easy to achieve and are subpar. A better chart would be one of the US Government's Physical Fitness Test for High Schools. REscano 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a separate page would be more appropriate for military standards. The basic standards for the British Army are here :
http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/RegularArmy/Requirements/GetFitForTheArmy/Officer/sandhurst.htm
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.76.105.142 (
talk)
12:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been a chubby guy all my life until a few months ago when I said enough is enough and started exercising a lot and controlled exactly what I eat. Things are going pretty well (I seem to have the ability to gain muscle very fast) and now I'm finally able to do correct pushups for the first time. But here's the thing: at about 5-10 pushups my spine really starts to hurt in the abdomen area and I'm forced to stop. My upper body muscles could take a lot more but it feels like my spine will snap. I didn't find any information about what kind of stress pushups put on the back and spine in the article so I'm wondering if such info should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.30.78 ( talk) 09:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, should definitely be there. Tip: Try practicing by going to the lower position with a fist of air left between yourself and the floor and keep that position for 30 sec, 60 sec, 90 sec until you can do 300 sec. This strengthens your lower back musculature. Great you started, keep it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.232.209.152 ( talk) 17:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Name: Noone actually calls push ups press ups, its ridiculous to have them under this title simply because it was the original one chosen.
Picture: Why is the main picture of someone doing a push up incorrectly? I understand that the text underneath tells people that its wrong, but it seems backwards to have the salient picture on the page showing NOT what to do.
Tables: These numbers in these tables are far too low. To say that a male aged 20-29 being able to do >35 is excellent is quite ridiculous. I got down and tried just then and could do 37 and I havent been training, playing sport or doing anything that could contibute. To call someone of my standard excellent is ridiculous. The numbers in the test section of the talk seem far more suitable.
I think perhaps we need to reexamine the chart that rates people based on how many pushups you can do. Its figures are a little low. While I would like to believe that if I can do 38 push-ups, I am in excellent health, that's simply not true. However, some of the charts out there have somewhat high figures as well. One fitness book targeted at teens that I own rates those who can do 46 or more push-ups in a minute as excellent. I believe that this figure is probably more accurate than other analyses. We should find a good chart with at least plausible figures. As sort of a benchmark, I am 16 years old, have been working out for ~2 years, can bench my own weight, and consider myself at least reasonably strong. I can do 49 push-ups in a minute. While I would rate someone who can do 38+ push-ups in a minute as being in good health, I probably would not call them strong (unless they weighed a ton). We also need to change the article title to push-up. We're not all Brits, you know. - Peteweez 01:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Such a generalized chart is mediocre because it does not account for weight differences. It's easier for a lighter individual to do a given number of push ups than it is for heavier people. Shawnc 07:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The existing charts on the page from the Army etc are very unclear. Nothing explains actually what the figures are. I assume they're number of push-ups but this isn't actually stated anywhere. EAi 00:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Do a one arm push up. On the way up, clap hands with the free hand in mid air, then return to the one arm position without letting the free hand touch the ground. For increased difficulty, use less than five digits. I call it the one arm clap push up. (Original research) Shawnc 08:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the caption under the picture is snarky. And HILARIOUS. 24.175.10.61 04:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Please provide sources for this sort of thing:
Otherwise it's too easy for someone to add themselves. — Matt Crypto 10:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: I corrected the amount of pushups needed to pass the US Army Physical Fitness Test. It takes a score of 60% in each event, so it would require 42 push-ups for 17-21, et cetera...
-AussieYank
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.24.116.2 (
talk)
02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all , in the real propper pushup (unlike the ones shown in any of the images)
the arms are tucked in 45 degrees from the torso , this is done to reduce the wear and tear on the shoulder joint and rotator cuff muscles , and be able to use the triceps and front deltroids evently with the chest , people who train at home soley with bodyweight should select excersises that train as many muscles as possible because they otherwise won't be able to train the front deltroids untill they can do harder variation of presses like dips. and you can't do more repetitions with this technique , sicne due to the reduced levrage you life more weight each rep , so it gets down to using your chest and triceps for the same intensity as normal pushups , but getting more training for your time.
actually that's the same technique athletes (not body builders however) bench press as well.
also I want to reccomend adding a section about one armed pushups , and planche pushups thath ave been gettnig a lot of attention in many bodyweight training forums on the internet lately , they are pretty impressive and make the article much better by making it more interesting to read.
many wikipedia articles are so plain that I literally fall asleep or get extreamly drowsy when I have to read them as a source of information.
by the way: sorry for my bad english , that's why I'm asking someone else to write it , however I might write any imformation you need about it here if anyone would like. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
88.155.41.110 (
talk)
18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
I thought martial artists did pushups on their first 2 knuckles of each hand to 1) deaden the nerves there 2)strengthen the muscles in the same line as the punch/strike 3) get used to having pressure / a way to simulate hitting something on those 2 knuckles and aligning your wrists properly. That was only what I imagined though - I don't have any experience. Tkjazzer 21:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
They do indeed, though I'm not sure if those are the correct reasons or not. 75.83.141.204 ( talk) 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes they do, but almost all reasons are wrong - on knuckles only leads to injuries unless you totally destroy the nerve cells. This is accomplished after you have destroyed the tendons runnig over your knuckles base - e.g. you cant even pick up a cup of coffee anymore as these tendons control your finger movement. Martial artists train a lot of bad stuff, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.232.209.152 ( talk) 18:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
There should be a section explaining all the benefits of doing push ups. Son of Kong 03:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that this is interesting (to a point), why just showcase the U.S. military's fitness levels? Why not the U.K.'s or Mexico's or even Canada's military fitness levels? It seems somewhat crass to automatically utilize one nations definition, especially considering that Wikipedia is a global initiative. Matthew Cadrin 05:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The animation of a press-up should be removed. The animation is very distracting while trying to read the text to the left of it, there is no pause button, and as stated in the caption, he is using poor form anyway. I will remove this picture. Please respond here as well as copying your responce on my personal talk page. -- TyGuy92 01:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Your rationale for posting poor pictures is that it is better than nothing. I could not disagree with that more. If Wikipedia is truly aiming for quality, it would not have poor examples with captions saying "Ignore this, ignore that." Or "Even though he's doing it wrong, this is sorta what is looks like." It's like your gym teacher demonstrating it, screwing it up, and saying "Even though I can't do it, you get the idea." I would really appreciate it if you would leave the pictures off. If it means so much to you to have a picture on there, take a picture of yourself doing a proper pushup, waive any copyright claims, and post it.
Also, has there ever been a serious debate over animations playing alongside the article? I for one find it extremely distracting. Perhaps pausing the amimation with a link leading to a playing version of it? Several times (not on the Wikipedia) I've gone to a site that annoying ads that keep catching your eye when your trying to read and decided just to use a different site. I don't beleive even an informative animation is much better.
-- TyGuy92 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that just isn't right. You should not have inaccurate information. We're not talking about perfection, we're talking about correct or incorrect. The picture is misleading, not to mention the fact that it just isn't professional to have a picture like that on there. And your little comment about "I could say the same about you" is just childish. Come on. I'm not saying I want a picture on there, I'm just saying it shouldn't be an inaccurate one. For an administrator, you're awfully petty and not very motivated for change, it could even be said that you are afraid of it. Going back to our terminology debate, you don't care about the vast majority of people who use push up instead of press up, you just want to keep using your Queen's English that nobody else in the world uses. Both Canada and the U.S. use push up. Nobody in these two nations uses the phrase press up. The U.S. and Canada combined have 350 million people. The U.K. has around 60 mil. I can tell that you are just a selfish bastard who doesn't care about the vast majority or people in the world, just your little island. Think about it.-- TyGuy92 22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
p.s. I'm not sure if you're aware of it or not, but the voting to move the article to a different name was initiated by someone seperate from me months ago and had been at a stand still, with several times more votes in favor of moving the page than against it, when I took it upon myself to move it as a clear consensus had been arrived upon. It wasn't until I moved it that Matt stepped in and started blocking my actions, as I've stated, most likely because he wanted his British dialect to reign superior over the masses. Kind of elitist, isn't it? Anyway, since I moved the article and questioned why, I've been getting dismissive responses from Matt, and apparantly this topic hads gained some sort of notoriety as more votes started rolling in recently. Look at the dates on the votes. I had every right to move the article.-- TyGuy92 01:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
See http://youtube.com/watch?v=X79LlPDmpOM and http://www.aikidofaq.com/practice/a_section31.html
They're intended to strengthen the wrists for the various wrist locks and throws performed in Aikido. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbsears ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Chaturanga Dandasana is an important part of Surya Namaskara, the Sun Salutation sequence of yoga postures. It has some similarities to a push up, but the elbows are held in fairly close. See http://www.yogajournal.com/poses/469. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbsears ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It's very likely that this or the "Dand" or the Surya Nemaskar were the original exercises on which the pushup was based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsunlin ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's ignore all previous debate. Now someone tell me why the WikiPEDIA article is called "Press up" while wikiMedia has it listed as "Push up"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulumonkey ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It should be Push-Up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backvoods ( talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph on planche push ups said "In this variation, the exercise is the equivalent of a person lifting 80% of his or her body weight." This doesn't seem to make sense to me (why wouldn't it be 100%?), is uncited, and I can find no evidence for it on the Google, so I removed it. — Sam 63.138.152.238 ( talk) 14:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The animation of that old guy doing a push-up is bad. His feet are spread apart and his palms are badly positioned, also his back doesn't seem right. I'd upload one of me doing it in proper form but I don't have the equipment. Now what's all of your excuses for not uploading a good one? You're probably obese nerds. Oh well. 63.225.247.82 ( talk) 01:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we just leave the title as "press up" and then use the term "push up" in the article itself. Seems like a fair compromise? 202.67.76.202 ( talk) 14:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Push up is clearly the more common word used. I never even heard press up before today.-- Fire 55 ( talk) 05:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below (I say push-up). Dekimasu よ! 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Press-up → Push-up — It's been 2 years since the last straw poll was taken regarding the move of this article, consensus can change. 168.7.247.217 ( talk) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I invite everyone to look over the Manual of Style, specifically:
“ | If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used. | ” |
Emphasis is added on early, this article is no longer in an early stage. As for the compelling reason to change let's look at what the Manual says on national ties:
“ | An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. | ” |
So I guess it's been decided that this article really has no national ties. But what is the intent behind this section of the Manual anyways?
“ | This is primarily intended to avoid the (unlikely) case in which an article that will be overwhelmingly read by one nationality has been written in another national dialect. | ” |
Isn't that what is essentially happening now? This term is only used in the UK, with push-up being used in every other English speaking country in the world. This term appears to be in the minority in the UK itself [2] [3] This is definitely resulting in the article being read overwhelming "in another national dialect."
I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We should be following longstanding intent not going by the longstanding letter of a guideline. Rules should be broken to improve the encyclopedia. 168.7.247.217 ( talk) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. The criterion is "if an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety". The argument that "I've never heard" another variety of English is not valid, nor is that it is less popular than another variety of English. — Matt Crypto 06:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
“ | International scope: Wikipedia is not country-specific | ” |
“ | Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. | ” |
168.7.249.244 ( talk) 16:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
“ | Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. | ” |
Not to mention the intent behind the specific guideline is to avoid unnecessary national ties- exactly the opposite of what the policy is being used for in this article. I can't see how "I got here first, so I'm not going to allow anyone to make the article more accessible to international audience" is acceptable in this ridiculous case. Don't be fooled into reading the guideline by the letter, the entire purpose of it is accessibility. 168.7.255.158 ( talk) 05:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Press-up → Push-up — It's been 2 years since the last straw poll was taken regarding the move of this article, consensus can change. 168.7.247.217 ( talk) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The other day I made a small edit that could have struck a nice compromise in the nomenclature debate. As I expected, Matt Crypto reverted it back without citing a reason. Frankly, I think she has too much time on her hands. But moving on, currently the opening sentence reads "A press-up, also known as a push-up, is a common strength training exercise...". As these discussions have shown, the term push up is far more common, more established, more widely-recognized, and has decades of precedence over press up. The British term maintains its dominance in this article based on the flimsy pretext that it was originally authored this way, and that its original author continues to monitor edits like a paranoid hawk. If this same exercise were known as a "flibbywibble" in New Zealand, and the article was originally authored by a New Zealander, would changing it to something more widely understood even be up for debate?
Currently, the article makes no mention of the apparently vast difference in usage of the terms, and that opening sentence gives the impression press up is the dominant term. I suggest the first sentence be changed to "A press-up, more commonly known as a push up, is a common...". Press-up remains the dominant term in the body of the article (to satisfy the few hardheads) but the article acknowledges that push up is, in reality, the dominant expression. Perhaps another note could be added to the "History" section that more specifically explains the regionality of the terms, to more clearly show that one term is more widely understood, but I have no interest in doing so myself and likely facing the wrath of people with ill-conceived priorities. And no, I'm not starting an edit war. I'm not going to change it again. My original edit was to test my theory that the article was being monitored. Aoystreck ( talk) 22:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Source added. End of discussion. 168.7.247.212 ( talk) 02:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)