Ok, so on a different forum, I am fighting with these people over whether or not a push-up is actually beneficial to a workout.

I say no because they are just endurance training after you reach a certain level of fitness. If you can do at least 25 in a row they aren't really helping you develop muscle mass.

I just need some input from you guys so I can Re-direct them to this thread to show that I have back-up. (If you guys agree with me...)

Thx in advance! =D

If your goal is strength, and you can do more then 20 it's probably not gonna help.

If your goal is endurance, then sure they'll be effective..

one arm push-ups or PPPUs would be good for strength.

when im was in cnctema(russian martial arts) we learned to do a single push-up. start in the up possion and slowly go dow, breathing, over the course of about a minute or 2. then slowly rise taking as much time as the first step. this strengthn tendons which unlike muscles seldom fail. itll help ur endurance and strength of ur whole upper body. this actually allows martial artists to punch through brick and such. ( i could do 2 at one point) if u want to work lower and middle switch to a sit-up and squat using the same princibles

Spencer:)......

I will agree that the info about the exercise zayn provided is more than likely not the best way to build the essential power to punch through brick, but I wouldn't go as far as to say coutner-productive!

Spencer.. No. 

First off, you still didn't even mention why that would ever be counter-productive, which would imply that somehow it's training that actually magically reduces your strength, which is obviously not the case at all, and if you wanted to keep claiming that it is, then you really need to explain the "magically reduces" part with an actual mechanism, rather than 'not going into the math'. 
Doing slower movements where the muscle fibers are fully recruited for prolonged contractions is actually quite effective at training muscle fibers, increase challenge, stimulate muscle growth and even helps hormonal and neurological adaptations (particularly recruitment of more fibers and coordinated unison contraction of them, giving you access to larger amounts of strength) that also improve strength.
If you can do an iron cross for a small fraction of a second or hold it for 20 seconds, those are quite different effort levels and training stimulations, and the longer one is actually more effective even for strength, "power" etc.
 
While plyometric is good and all, it's not the only type of exercise in the world that can help strength, power etc.
In fact beginners often have the problem that they launch the weights around so their muscles are actually minimally challenged and get to rest at the start and end of each fast contraction rather than getting good negatives, and the only thing that ends up getting trained is good old inertial motion...
In addition, the example of breaking a board does not necessarily require "power" or "strength", it requires training in a bunch of other unrelated areas which include proper form and trajectory, strengthening of bones through microfractures etc. And yes, explosiveness can certainly help, but you can pick-up a lot of speed with proper form and circular motions for example, and having increased mass and being able to continue to push through at impact rather than bouncing back helps too.

While we are obviously in agreement, David, people will just see your picture/avatar and will just say "well, of course HE's going to say they are good no matter what..." hehe 

Have to disagree that pushups are useless.  In fact, pushups and pullups are two of the best workouts that a person can do to strengthen their upper body.  I guarantee that if you give me two people of equal strength and stamina levels to train, and I train one by doing body weight exercises (with pushups as a cornerstone) and the other with pure strength training, that in three months the individual trained with purely bodyweight exercises will not only be stronger, but quicker, more endurance, better reflexes, and better overall cardiovascular health...[/i]guarantee it.[/i] 


   

It all depends on the needs of the individual. Someone might have a lot of snap but not strength so in that case there would be nothing wrong with doing heavy squats.

Saying pushups are better than weights is silly. For one weights and push-ups can be combined. Two, they are both resistant training so in reality they are the same thing. Finally, you can build a lot of power through weights (Snatch and power clean)

Once I can do a legit one arm pushup and 15 PPPUs I will be doing weighted pushups. To try to do one fingered pushups (I doubt I'll see the day.)

The big problem with threads on bodyweight exercises is that you can say well... this exercise is useless, but this one is not for strength.

"Regular" pushups after you can do so many aren't great... but one arm pushups or pseudo planche are more effective. They're still in the same "line" because they have "pushups" in the name.. therefore you can say that pushups are effective for everything.

If you're going to discuss something you have to IDENTIFY exactly what you are talking about and only that.

1. If we're talking about "regular pushups" in this thread, then no they are not effective for gaining anywhere decent level of strength.

2. If were talking pushups in general (as in all variations) then YEAH you can gain strength when you use different variations as you progress.

Gah.