I had already read that article, but I get the feeling some of you didn’t. Either that or you didn’t read my post.
In any case, if you had read - and understood - both, you’d see that the article does not answer my question. (In fact, it was one of the articles which prompted it)
Let me rephrase it.
Pull ups are superior to the lat pull down because we’re moving our body around a fixed point, instead of dragging a weight towards our motionless body, correct?
Or, in Poliquin’s words:
“Why are pulldowns a dork exercises? Simple. In pulldowns, you move a free-moving object (the bar) around you. It’s easier to use your lower back and momentum to pull the weight. “Easier” is never the best way to build strength and musculature. With chins, you have to move your body around a fixed object (the bar), insuring an overload on the back and the muscles of the upper arms. This movement is more realistic and has a much better transference to sports performance.”
So why isn’t the same thinking applied to bench press vs weighted push ups?
Isn’t the difference between bench and a push up very similar to the difference between a pull down and a pull up?
So you see, I’m not talking about using push ups for variety. I’m wondering whether or not they are just as superior to the benchpress as the pull up is to the lat pull down.
If so (assuming the logistics of adding resistance were adequately dealt with) why bench instead of push up? Ego? Why do a bent over row instead of the inverted push up variety?
And any of you who want to slam me without really thinking it through first, just because I don’t post 100 times a day doesn’t mean I haven’t read every single article here at least once, nor does it mean I’m clueless, but thanks for the smug little flames anyway.