Push-Ups Standards for Men

Where these numbers come from

Every number on this page traces to a named, published source — and the model that connects them is stated in full. Nothing here is guessed, and nothing on this page is presented as a measured database of our own users.

The anchor tables. One-rep-max standards for the barbell lifts come from the adult performance standards published by Dr. Lon Kilgore on ExRx.net — the same classification tables behind Rippetoe & Kilgore's Practical Programming for Strength Training — built on roughly 70 years of accumulated competitive weightlifting and powerlifting classification data. Bodyweight-movement standards come from published fitness-test research: push-up norms from the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (2003), as reproduced in ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription; forearm-plank percentiles from Strand and colleagues (Journal of Human Kinetics, 2014 — 471 adults tested); 1-minute sit-to-stand reference values from Strassmann and colleagues (International Journal of Public Health, 2013 — 6,926 adults tested); and the single-leg heel-rise criterion from Lunsford & Perry (Physical Therapy, 1995 — 203 adults tested).

Between the table rows. Published tables list a handful of bodyweight classes. For bodyweights in between, this page interpolates along an allometric curve — strength scales with bodymass to the two-thirds power, not linearly, which is why heavier lifters lift more in absolute terms but less per kilogram. That exponent is not ours: it was measured on world-record lifts by Lietzke (Science, 1956) and is the recommended body-size normalisation in the strength-testing literature (Jaric, Sports Medicine, 2002). We never extrapolate beyond the published range — tables are clamped at their published ends.

Age-group tables. The 40–49, 50–59 and 60–69 tables apply age factors of 0.87, 0.78 and 0.59 — computed cell-by-cell from Kilgore's own published masters tables, not chosen by us. The magnitude is consistent with the age-related performance decline documented in masters lifters by Meltzer (Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1994).

Derived pages. A few variants have no published table of their own. Where a peer-reviewed measurement links a variant to a parent lift, the standard is derived and the page says so at the top: the dumbbell bench press is set at 83% of the barbell bench standard, because dumbbell chest-press 1RM measured 17% below barbell in direct testing (Saeterbakken, van den Tillaar & Fimland, Journal of Sports Sciences, 2011); the standing dumbbell shoulder press is set at 93% of the barbell press (Saeterbakken & Fimland, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2013); the sumo deadlift uses the deadlift standard unchanged, because both stances are contested identically in powerlifting. If a movement has neither a published table nor a verified link to one, we do not publish standards for it — that page simply does not exist on this site.

Reps and holds. For bodyweight movements, levels map directly to the published category or percentile boundaries of the source test — for example, plank levels sit on the published 20th/40th/60th/80th percentiles, and push-up levels are the published CSEP category cut-offs. Where the published protocol differs from common gym practice, the page says so next to the table — for example, the women's push-up norms use the modified knee position, and the sit-to-stand test is performed from a standard-height chair.

What this is — and is not. These are model standards: published benchmarks connected by a stated, checkable model. They are a fair reference point for where your lift sits today, not a verdict on you and not a prediction. Strength varies with training history, sleep, technique and more — which is why the levels are wide bands, not single numbers.

Compiled by Maddy — NASM-CPT. He reviews the source list with every model update.

References

1. Kilgore, L. Weightlifting Performance Standards. ExRx.net (exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/StrengthStandards). Adult 1RM performance standards; companion tables to Rippetoe, M. & Kilgore, L., Practical Programming for Strength Training (Aasgaard). 2. Jaric, S. Muscle strength testing: use of normalisation for body size. Sports Medicine 2002;32(10):615–631. 3. Lietzke, M.H. Relation between weight-lifting totals and body weight. Science 1956;124(3220):486–487. 4. Meltzer, D.E. Age dependence of Olympic weightlifting ability. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 1994;26(8):1053–1067. 5. Saeterbakken, A.H., van den Tillaar, R. & Fimland, M.S. A comparison of muscle activity and 1-RM strength of three chest-press exercises with different stability requirements. Journal of Sports Sciences 2011;29(5):533–538. 6. Saeterbakken, A.H. & Fimland, M.S. Effects of body position and loading modality on muscle activity and strength in shoulder presses. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2013;27(7):1824–1831. 7. Escamilla, R.F. et al. A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis of sumo and conventional style deadlifts. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2000;32(7):1265–1275. 8. Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology. Canadian Physical Activity, Fitness & Lifestyle Approach, 2003 — push-up norms by age and sex, as reproduced in ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 9. Strand, S.L., Hjelm, J., Shoepe, T.C. & Fajardo, M.A. Norms for an isometric muscle endurance test. Journal of Human Kinetics 2014;40:93–102. 10. Strassmann, A. et al. Population-based reference values for the 1-min sit-to-stand test. International Journal of Public Health 2013;58(6):949–953. 11. Lunsford, B.R. & Perry, J. The standing heel-rise test for ankle plantar flexion: criterion for normal. Physical Therapy 1995;75(8):694–698.