PDA

View Full Version : Fitness and the martial arts



R. L. Anglen
18th September 2001, 06:27
I will try and repost this later with some changes

red_fists
18th September 2001, 06:46
Hi.

I think it depends on the martial arts style you study.

My daily training consists of 30 minutes of standing (Zhang Zhuang), stretching, breathing exercises and doing each Form twice. That I do morning and evening. Occasionally I also do Movement/Posture training

Apart from that I do not lift weights, jog or do any other form of exercise.
I also do not have a strict diet, but try to keep my food intake balanced and healthy.

Since my Style also uses Weapons I get a fair workout using those during form training.


My stats. Height: 178cm, Weight: 86kg, Injuries: Damaged vertebrae, damaged knee and damaged ankle.

SevenStar
1st October 2001, 06:16
tues/thurs/sat

100 pushups
180 iron buffalos
stance training - as long as I can hold them
forms - 5 - 10 times each
technique drills - 3 times each
hindu squats - 100 reps
monkey jacks - 60 reps
shifting - 20 - 30 mins
squats

mon/wed/fri

weight training
3 hours northern shaolin class

colin linz
4th October 2001, 05:57
Personally I like to try and stay fit, only because it improves the quality of my life. I don’t believe that it is greatly important to my Martial Art, as I don’t do a sport type. I don’t believe in trying to become something my genetics don’t favour. I would rather spend the time increasing my skill and technique levels. Fitness and strength don’t stay with you as you get older, but technique does.

Having said all that I do exercise. I don’t do traditional strength exercise because they don’t apply in a functional sense. I work more with my stabilisers especially my Transverse Abdominus, and the Multifidus. As these are vital for spinal stability. I like to be able to apply the strength I have. What you tend to find with people that do allot of weight training is that they become strong, however they find it difficult to apply this strength within a functional frame work. A good demonstration of this is a bench press. If your familiar with the exercise try it lying on a swiss ball, you will probably be unable to lift anywhere near the same weight because your body's stabilisers are overpowered. The reason that you can do this normally is that your body does not need the stability because the bench provides this.

Cheers
Colin Linz

SevenStar
4th October 2001, 06:56
I agree to an extent. There has always been a big debate over functional muscle mass. However, By doing plyometrics, and proper MA training, it's not extremely hard for that mass to be used functionally. That doesn't only apply to MA, look at football players and wrestlers. Their muscle is extremely funcitonal.

NoMan
4th October 2001, 12:05
If your familiar with the exercise try it lying on a swiss ball, you will probably be unable to lift anywhere near the same weight because your body's stabilisers are overpowered.

I often hear this, then I think, "weight a minute", (bad pun). The traditional system of logical analysis tells us that when our neural cortex is overwhelmed, as whenever a stabilizer can't hold the body steady for an exercise, it shuts down the movement. However, physics tells us that without a foundational base, we can't perform any movements. Because I can't throw a punch standing on a piece of ice as my base on one toe doesn't mean I can't throw a punch period. Without a functional base for supporting the movement, of course you can't do it! In regards to how hard you punch, it's simply a very basic physics principle as well, the summarization of your body forces. With each additional body force you apply, the more your punch hurts. Foreman didn't get knockouts because he was a featherweight. Further, plenty of people do exercises such as the bench press without sufficient strength in their stabilizers and synergists. The result is predictable, whenever the weight goes beyond the limit the stabilizers can handle, it's like having a high-torque engine in a car that can't handle it. It's going to shred that car. The same predictable outcome happens, but the movement nonetheless occurs.

colin linz
4th October 2001, 14:21
Yes footballers and wrestlers do have good functional strength, but they spend considerable time training in the techniques of their sport. This acts to increase the their core stability to the point that they can utilise the additional strength gained in the gym. I don’t know about USA, but in Australia most teams are incorporating core stability programs in their training schedule.

From my point of view I’m not genetically predisposed to having a large muscle mass. I could do weights for years and without some chemical help not achieve much size. However I can spend a little time each day working on general fitness and core stability and achieve noticeable improvement. This allows me to spend more time with my techniques, and as I said earlier, good technique will last allot longer than my ability to super fit.

I have trained with many sensei in Japan who are older and no where near as fit or strong as me, yet they can put me in incredible pain and kick my but in randori any time. This is because they not only have a good understanding of the waza, but more importantly they know how and when to apply it without thinking. This only comes from training correctly and often, but once learned stays with you fairly easily.

I’ve seen big strong people that can’t punch or kick with any power, and conversely I’ve seen small guys that can. I enjoy my art so I spend most of my time with that. Some people enjoy lifting weights, and that's fine too. I’m not going to say they shouldn’t, just that I prefer not.

Cheers
Colin Linz

luihu
5th October 2001, 16:10
Making it short, cos I don´t have much to say.

I think that it is important to remember that only reason to lift weights isn´t to get bigger. You can also lift small weights (many times) to improve your muscles and to burn fat. Then you won´t probably get big muscles, but you will be as fit.

József Pap

Colin
7th October 2001, 03:00
Yes, high rep’s and lighter weights are a good fat burner, and your right that you will experience little hypertrophy. Hypertrophy is not easy to achieve and power athletes spend many hours in the gym to gain it.

However in the context of this thread ( fitness in martial arts ) is it necessary? I suppose it would depend on what art you did, as different ones use the body in different ways. It should be remembered that fitness is much more than strength or endurance. I believe the best approach is to analyse what your trying to achieve, and then train according to the degree of importance.

As an example Karate has a tendency to mould the practitioner to it’s need for power. Calloused knuckles, powerful punching and kicking, are what I think of when I think of Karate. While some other arts don’t try and harden the body, but increase the skill levels so they can attack the weak areas of the body ( pressure points, joints ).

The difference in basic philosophy will dictate the degree of importance that you place on any one fitness component. In my case while I do have a fitness program it is secondary to time in the dojo.

Cheers
Colin

Colin
7th October 2001, 03:46
Noman,

Can you try something and let me know how it goes. Get a Swiss ball and do some bench presses, taking some Saftey precautions of course. You will probably not be able to lift near your normal weight, but try to get near your maximum. Now spend a couple of weeks on core stability training, and then retry the first exercise. I would be surprised if you didn’t improve significantly.

Your right in that if your very focused and determined when your stabilisers are failing that some people will continue the movement and damage themselves. However the body has in built Saftey switches that try to not let this happen. they do this by not allowing the full potential of the major muscle to exceed the potential of the stabiliser. This is a very simplified test but the theory is sound. A friend went to a workshop on core stability, the instructor there used this demonstration. Also there were a number of body builders, they had a go at the instructor about the amount of weight that he was using. They of course could lift much heavier weight. The instructor simply let them have a go with the weight he was using, the body builders failed to lift the weight! They were much bigger than him, but they could not use their full potential outside the environment of their normal training.

Yes mass times speed equals power, but power is not always important. Have you ever watched Sumo? Quite often a small guy can beat a big guy. The difference is the skill of the two, sometimes having more power only gives your opponent more power. In the case of Formans strong punching and knockouts there can be no doubt that he was powerful and big, he of course could also apply his strength in a functional sense. It is also worth noting that knockout punches don’t need to be powerful, just accurate.

Cheers
Col

NoMan
8th October 2001, 10:53
The problem is that core stability is static, non-moving. How does static, isometric strength, relate to ballistic stresses? What we call "functional strength" is just a combination of a bunch of different factors. For martial arts, we classify it as non-linear anaerobic strength/endurance, nonlinear aerobic strength endurance, and speed-strength. (Basically, how quickly you can recruit a maximum amount of muscle fibers in a maximum amount of muscles, leave these muscles "turned on" during movement, and have endurance to keep repeating doing so.)

Anyway, this isn't to negate the effects of stability training, as it definetely has its purposes, but rather, to what extent does this help ballistic non-linear movements? The ultimate in bench presses would be a "bench throw" machine. Most people start slowing down on the bench press, at the last 25% of the movement, so as to not injure their elbows, thus making them move less explosively. A bench-throw machine would allow maximum effort peaking at the extension, much like a punch.


but they could not use their full potential outside the environment of their normal training.

This isn't a strange phenom. For instance, take a bodybuilder who loves leg presses, but doesn't squat. Even if they have a fantastic leg press, their squat usually will not be anywhere near it should. Why? Neurological adaptations. When you first began training, you probably noticed that you could add weight like crazy in your successive workouts. This was your muscles building greater neurological pathways. Then, once this wore off, the gains slow down, and this is where people get depressed and usually stop training. It happens also when you change exercises. That's why we have the specificity principle, or doing exercises closest to your given sports movement.


In the case of Formans strong punching and knockouts there can be no doubt that he was powerful and big, he of course could also apply his strength in a functional sense. It is also worth noting that knockout punches don’t need to be powerful, just accurate.

That's true, but I'd put my money on Foreman over Trinidad any day. Strength does matter a lot. For instance, I grappled against a guy with a grip like steel. He wasn't a particularly great grappler, but my goodness, his strength was amazing. Anyway, he got me into a weird one-armed choke, and I had to tap out. This choke could never have worked if someone smaller or less strong was using it, but he got me to tap. True, if I was as skilled as I wished I was, that probably wouldn't have happened, but in absense of skill, strength is really nice to have. If you have strength, skill, and endurance, I certainly'd bet my beer money on you.

colin linz
9th October 2001, 02:34
We seem to have a different understanding of stabilisers, and how they function. The whole point behind the stabiliser is to maintain joint stability through out the rang of movement. By example your lower back, if you have the strength and control of the Transverse Abdominus, and the Multifidus, your back is very stable while in motion. However if you try to compensate for lack of control and fitness of these muscles by recruiting the Rectus Abdominus, and the Obliques you will indeed be locked in a static position. The point behind the stability training is to allow good base support while in a changing environment. This allows you to use a greater amount of your strength. You can get a good feel for this if you have a back injury, as one of the first things your brain learns is that when it turns the stabilisers on it hurts. The brain quickly learns to turn them off. After the injury has settled down you need to spend so much time just on the stabilisers to regain some functional movement. Once you have learnt to isolate them, and relax the other abdominals you can feel the difference in support through out, and while you are moving.

Yes I take your point on sport specific exercise. although there is considerable difference in the need for core stability in a squat compared to a leg press. With the exercise with the Swiss Ball the athletes are doing a very similar exercise, the only difference is that instead of lying down on stable surface they are put in an environment that forces them to add stability to their power and movement.

Yes if I was Boxing Forman I would be worried. Boxing has a need for power as you can’t focus the force to a kyusho because of the glove, it also needs power to launch the weight of the glove. However if Forman was to fight one of the Gracies in a less restricted manner it may be different. On a side note you can develop more power with out increasing strength, size, or speed. If you develop good joint alignment at the point of impact you can improve the force of impact considerably.

As I said in an earlier post, it depends what sort of art you do as to how important physical strength is to it. I have trained under a number of sensei in Japan that have clearly demonstrated that technique is the important area of my art. I have seen strong people muscle their way through a technique, only to have their much weaker training partner apply the same technique with ease, and fluidity. What would happen if that same strong guy came up against another strong guy? My bet is he wouldn’t be able to apply the waza. As we get older our capacity to maintain strength and fitness lessens. If we take the time to develop a good understanding of our waza, how to apply it in a functional sense, and how to read your opponents and apply the waza in a strategic sense we will be able to maintain these skills even when we are older.

One of our most respected sensei ( Bando Sensei , who unfortunately died early this year ) was an expert with the application of kyusho within his waza. When I last trained under him he was 70+, small and thin, yet he could apply his waza so well it didn’t matter how strong his opponent was. He could look at a person and know what kyusho would work and what kyusho wouldn’t. He didn’t need strength to grab his opponent because he knew how to grab properly. He didn’t need strength to apply his waza, it’s not needed if done correctly, and trust me, he had no problem knocking people out.

I just enjoy my dojo training, so I would prefer to spend my time this way. Weight training takes up too much time and is boring ( only my opinion ) and is just not necessary with my art.

Cheers
Col

NoMan
9th October 2001, 07:36
We seem to have a different understanding of stabilisers, and how they function. The whole point behind the stabiliser is to maintain joint stability through out the rang of movement.

That's my definition as well. Muscles which support a given position while allowing a movement using an agonist, syergists, and an antagonist muscle group. If I'm going to be technical, I'd say it's a muscle that stabilizes, or fixes, a bone so that movement can occur efficiently at another bone articulating with the stabilized bone.


The point behind the stability training is to allow good base support while in a changing environment. This allows you to use a greater amount of your strength.

We agree. Dynamic, not static movements. You get dynamic by training dynamic. Doing abdominal versaball drills, things of that nature. However, my conclusion from your idea was that there was something missing from the normal bench press. You can make all kinds of exercises harder and recruit more stabilizers. Start doing barbell curls on one leg, alternate on sets. Decrease the width of the supine bench for bench presses. But where does this transfer into functional strength? If you want to really start recruiting stabilizers, do a one-armed handstand. Then start taking away fingers. But none of this makes you more dynamic, it simply increases your strength in a given position.


You can get a good feel for this if you have a back injury, as one of the first things your brain learns is that when it turns the stabilisers on it hurts. The brain quickly learns to turn them off. After the injury has settled down you need to spend so much time just on the stabilisers to regain some functional movement.

I see we do have a different definition for stabilizers. Any muscle can be a stabilizer, an antagonist, synergist, or agonist, it just depends upon what movement is happening. In a really bad back injury, usually the muscles aren't damaged, it's the discs and vertebrae that are injured. Your body learns to adjust to positions that don't stress the injured part of the body. I learned the same thing when I injured my ankle. Of course, because your torso is involved in almost everything you do, you have to learn new ways of doing things to avoid stressing it.


Yes I take your point on sport specific exercise. although there is considerable difference in the need for core stability in a squat compared to a leg press.

Absolutely, which is why the squats such a great exercise. We refer to it as functional because think realistically how many movements you do that resemble squats. Take football, when you get into position, or when you drop your bodyweight and go for a tackle. Or in grappling, when you shoot in, or in applying an elbow lock where you drop your bodyweight down onto them. Leg press movements are very rarely done in real life, so the transference is minimal.


With the exercise with the Swiss Ball the athletes are doing a very similar exercise, the only difference is that instead of lying down on stable surface they are put in an environment that forces them to add stability to their power and movement.

True, but does this added stabilizers transfer to anything? I listed a lot of goofball exercises that make your body one big stablizing unit, but they don't transfer to anything. My point is that a bench press is fine where it is. It's like a biceps curl, if you do it on one leg, sure, lots of extra muscles get called into play. But does the biceps curl need extra supporting muscle groups? Is the stress okay where it is at?


Yes if I was Boxing Forman I would be worried. Boxing has a need for power as you can’t focus the force to a kyusho because of the glove, it also needs power to launch the weight of the glove. However if Forman was to fight one of the Gracies in a less restricted manner it may be different.

I got my money on Gracie. But what if it was a no-gi, no choke-out, fist and feet only match? Royce wins because of his superior groundfighting skills, but bareknuckled, Foreman would kill him. That's the key to good fighting, keeping someone in your range of fighting, not theirs. But let's say we gave Foreman all the knowledge that the Gracie's have. Who would you think wins, Royce, or Foreman? Let's take Kevin Randleman. I've seen him beat guys with more skill, just because of his strength.


On a side note you can develop more power with out increasing strength, size, or speed. If you develop good joint alignment at the point of impact you can improve the force of impact considerably.

That's technique, which is, the most fundamental aspect of martial arts, not speed or strength. The question is, if we take two fighters, equally skilled, one has more speed and strength, who wins?


What would happen if that same strong guy came up against another strong guy?

The more skilled would win. However, there are people who are small with sloppy technique as well. Being strong doesn't mean you are automatically sloppy. It's a false assumption. Personally, I like to have good technique and strength. You'd be suprised how sloppy you get in a real fight. Adrenaline kicks in, tunnel vision, a lot of other factors come into play. Fine skill movements are replaced by sloppy uncoordinated ones. You breathe fast and shallow, start trembling, voice gets tight, etc. Technique may not always save you, strength may not always save you. I'd rather have both, and I can train in both without affecting my schedule any. So I do.


My bet is he wouldn’t be able to apply the waza. As we get older our capacity to maintain strength and fitness lessens.

Not really. Ever heard of a bodybuilder named Lee Priest? His grandfather could do 1200 lbs. on a leg press into his 80's. Dr. Fredrick Hatfield does 800 lbs. on the squat STILL, and he's into his fifties. He broke the World Record at 45 years old, hoisting 1004 lbs. in a squat. Right now, science is estimating that about 30% of the factors related to "aging" actually are attributeable to age, while 70% are attributeable to lifestyle. We have senior citizens who can run marathons, and out-bench college athletes. So I know that the strength gained through training doesn't go away with training.


If we take the time to develop a good understanding of our waza, how to apply it in a functional sense, and how to read your opponents and apply the waza in a strategic sense we will be able to maintain these skills even when we are older.

Yes, but even that is just like weight lifting. If I learn good waza now, and don't practice, ten years later, am I going to be able to fight? Of course not. In the same regards, if you don't lift weights, well, you're not going to maintain size/strength. It will go away. Both are continuous processes.


One of our most respected sensei ( Bando Sensei , who unfortunately died early this year ) was an expert with the application of kyusho within his waza. When I last trained under him he was 70+, small and thin, yet he could apply his waza so well it didn’t matter how strong his opponent was. He could look at a person and know what kyusho would work and what kyusho wouldn’t. He didn’t need strength to grab his opponent because he knew how to grab properly. He didn’t need strength to apply his waza, it’s not needed if done correctly, and trust me, he had no problem knocking people out.

So could several other masters of the martial arts. Technique is king, don't get me wrong. But, if I can have my cake and eat it to, well, I'm gonna.


I just enjoy my dojo training, so I would prefer to spend my time this way. Weight training takes up too much time and is boring ( only my opinion ) and is just not necessary with my art.

Well, no point in doing something you don't like is there? My training rarely takes up more than fifty minutes in the gym. (I also move fast between sets and exercises though). I don't think I could ever call a set of hard clean and jerks boring, but that's me. Unbelievable to us, some people find martial arts boring as well. To each their own as they say.

Colin
9th October 2001, 14:51
I can’t argue about the all things equal philosophy, the stronger fighter will probably win. I just feel that the technique side of my training is more important, It’s what I want to achieve.

The stabilisers are a very specific group of muscles, primarily made of slow twitch fibres. They are designed for low intensity long duration contraction. Thats not to say other muscles can’t stabilise the body, it’s just not their prime function. Any back injury usually results in the stabilisers being turned off. Once the area has repaired you can improve your symptoms dramatically by isolating and training the lower back stabilisers. I’ve had two separate back injuries. The first was a shattered disc between L4 - L5. I broke 3 pieces of disc of, the largest being 2.5 cm square, and lodging against the nerve route to my left leg. I had to have surgery to remove the disc and repair the area. About 12 months later, while cycling home from work ( at this stage I was doing about 300 kilometres a week ), I had an accident with a car. This time I received a 60% compression wedge fracture of L1. So I would say I have considerable damage to the structure of my lumber spine, however I can function reasonably well only because I discovered just how important these stabilisers were, and how much difference they make to the functional strength of the structure. This added stability has made the difference between me training and not training, in fact it has made a big difference in my life. If it can have this type of effect for me, it will certainly help someone who has a good structure achieve more of their potential.

Most people lose there strength as they get older, of course there may be some exemptions. I don’t like using Body Builders as a guide to normal achievements as the sport has too much reliance on drugs. I did a coaching course earlier this year and the presenter for the Gym section was the current Australian Olympic Weight Lifting Team Coach. He believes that a normal athlete should be very careful of adopting training programs they read about. He believes that most programs published these days rely on the athlete to be using chemical assistance, and that they can cause injuries to normal athletes. The fact that they introduced a natural class shows how ingrained this problem is within the sport.

One interesting thing I noticed when I returned to training after being away for so long, apart from a complete lack of fitness and the inability to remember the names of allot of waza, was how well my waza worked. I couldn’t associate the name to a waza, but when attacked I could respond with the correct type of waza for the attack. When you provide the correct stimuli in training your body learns the correct response. I don’t know how hard it was for you to learn to ride a bike, but I bet if you hadn’t ridden for a while it would still be there. So I’ll still place my trust in good waza.

Don’t get me wrong I enjoy exercise ( just not weights, except circuit training with an aerobic interval thrown in ), but in the context of this thread I would place a higher degree of importance on technique, lets face it the techniques required to develop are more diverse than say a 100 mtr sprint. With this in mind the sport specificity should place more importance on skills. To be successful you need to read your opponents skills. What he is attempting to do, preferably before he does it, and how you can turn this to your advantage. Unless you can do this successfully your just relying on luck. The only way to learn this is in the dojo, lot’s of randori and practice, and a well structured class.

I can understand your enjoyment in weight training. I enjoy endurance type training, but don’t place much importance on it. when considering a program for my MA. I wouldn’t recommend someone training in a MA ( unless it’s a sport MA ) to spend allot of time training for it especially if they have a tight schedule. I believe they would be better served in spending time in the dojo and optimising the resources that they already have.

If you have the time to adequately address the requirements of skill as well as spend 50 minutes a day in the gym thats fine, go for it.

I had a quick look at your site, it looks good. I’ll have to go through it when I have some spare time.

Thanks for the interesting discussion
Col

NoMan
9th October 2001, 20:56
can’t argue about the all things equal philosophy, the stronger fighter will probably win. I just feel that the technique side of my training is more important, It’s what I want to achieve.

Go for your goals. Otherwise, trainings no fun. And if trainings not fun, then I don't think anyone will continue it. We all like to whine about getting ribbed hard in class, but I wouldn't trade it in.


The stabilisers are a very specific group of muscles, primarily made of slow twitch fibres. They are designed for low intensity long duration contraction. Thats not to say other muscles can’t stabilise the body, it’s just not their prime function.

Pretty close. All muscles work on the "excitation threshold", which is a electro-chemical stimulation, to which we give numbers, 1, 2, 50, etc. If a 30 is released, for instance, fibers numbered on the excitation scale as 1 - 30 will perform their given action. Most stabilizing movements don't require heavy excitation levels, so they are primarily composed of red fibers, the same way calves and forearms are. Muscle fiber composition varies from muscle group to muscle group, generally its related to their usage though.


Any back injury usually results in the stabilisers being turned off. Once the area has repaired you can improve your symptoms dramatically by isolating and training the lower back stabilisers. I’ve had two separate back injuries.

Ouch, my condolensces. Back and knee injuries, two things I don't want.


The first was a shattered disc between L4 - L5. I broke 3 pieces of disc of, the largest being 2.5 cm square, and lodging against the nerve route to my left leg. I had to have surgery to remove the disc and repair the area. About 12 months later, while cycling home from work ( at this stage I was doing about 300 kilometres a week ), I had an accident with a car. This time I received a 60% compression wedge fracture of L1. So I would say I have considerable damage to the structure of my lumber spine, however I can function reasonably well only because I discovered just how important these stabilisers were, and how much difference they make to the functional strength of the structure. This added stability has made the difference between me training and not training, in fact it has made a big difference in my life. If it can have this type of effect for me, it will certainly help someone who has a good structure achieve more of their potential.

I'm not denying their role, just their transference. You're right about stabilizers making a difference in safety and structure. I don't remember the exact study, but there's one demonstrating that people who use machines versus free weights in athletic competition get injured more. There are two reasons speculated:

1.) Prime movers are way more powerful than stabilizers
2.) Neurologically, the body has adapted to no stabilizers in a movement. Thus, it cannot effectively relay the coordination.

A study I do know is by Hamill, B. "Relative Safety of Weightlifting and Weight Training", which states that olympic style weightlifting has the lowest injury rate per 100 hours of training, in fact, less than half. Primary reason cited is the strong interplay of stabilizers and synergists that are involved in Olympic lifts.


Most people lose there strength as they get older, of course there may be some exemptions.

I don't remember it exactly, but it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 8% or so per ten years. However, literature has shown that those who weight lift in their senior age do get stronger, they do gain mobility, and they can be fit again. I believe our own Igusaas didn't start weight training until the later portion of his life, and he seems to be very fervant about his training. I could be wrong though.


I don’t like using Body Builders as a guide to normal achievements as the sport has too much reliance on drugs.

Unfortunately, lots of sports have heavy drug usage. I was friends with Douglas Holmes, Linebacker for Greenbay in 92, 93. He was a juicer, as was almost everyone on the sports team. They even had doctors give them advice on it.


I did a coaching course earlier this year and the presenter for the Gym section was the current Australian Olympic Weight Lifting Team Coach. He believes that a normal athlete should be very careful of adopting training programs they read about.

I agree 1100%. That's one of the "five major myth sources" of weightlifting. Publishers are out to make money, and they have to print new material. So they are constantly, "reinventing the wheel", so to speak. Which leads to some weird training regimes. The fact is that most of these people are not trained in any way regarding physiology, biomechanics, or any other study related to weight lifting safely and properly.


He believes that most programs published these days rely on the athlete to be using chemical assistance, and that they can cause injuries to normal athletes. The fact that they introduced a natural class shows how ingrained this problem is within the sport.

I agree. There's a problem too with juicing. Though it works great on the muscles, it's not nearly so good on the ligaments and tendons, it weakens them over time. That added to the fact that muscle is gaining size/strength at extraordinairely fast levels, and it's a recipe for disaster. Most bodybuilders only use steroids during the in-season though, as "receptor-site downgrade" occurs. It's basically where you need more of a drug to cause the same effect, and even more will not produce the same effect that less used to. It's a trend though. Guys like Frank Zane wouldn't even place in the Mr. Olympia now. The audience favors big freaks, and that's what they get. Same thing with movies, we complain that their all garbage, but Hollywood makes what it knows will sell. Consumers make the trends, the market meets them.


One interesting thing I noticed when I returned to training after being away for so long, apart from a complete lack of fitness and the inability to remember the names of allot of waza, was how well my waza worked. I couldn’t associate the name to a waza, but when attacked I could respond with the correct type of waza for the attack. When you provide the correct stimuli in training your body learns the correct response. I don’t know how hard it was for you to learn to ride a bike, but I bet if you hadn’t ridden for a while it would still be there.

Well, I love bike riding. Favorite aerobic exercise, doesn't hurt my knees or lower back, and it makes for good scenary, (running bores me sometimes, especially same route, agh!) I get your point though. However, I remember one martial arts instructor saying something to the effect of,

"If I don't train one day, I know it. If I don't train two days, my students will know it. If I don't train three days, my enemy will know it."

He basically recalls a story where he quit martial arts completely, and started drinking heavily. He got his ass handed to him by a little guy he picked a fight with. He sobered up and resumed training, but he recalls how hard it was to get back into the swing of it. Of course, back injury versus drunken self-loathing is a bit of a wide comparison.


I had a quick look at your site, it looks good. I’ll have to go through it when I have some spare time.

Thanks, for the compliment and discussion as well. :smokin: Take care.

lgusaas
11th October 2001, 08:20
Originally posted by NoMan
I don't remember it exactly, but it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 8% or so per ten years. However, literature has shown that those who weight lift in their senior age do get stronger, they do gain mobility, and they can be fit again. I believe our own Igusaas didn't start weight training until the later portion of his life, and he seems to be very fervant about his training. I could be wrong though.

The later portion of my life?:confused: I started weight training at the young age of forty, with two-thirds of my life ahead of me. I'm fifty-two now, with half my life ahead of me. Part of my reason for weight training is to prepare for an active and healthy latter portion of my life when I eventually get to it

Seriously, I think weight training becomes more important as we age. I think that the loss of strength as we age comes mainly from inactivity and can be greatly reduced by weight training .

Well, I love bike riding. Favorite aerobic exercise, doesn't hurt my knees or lower back, and it makes for good scenary, (running bores me sometimes, especially same route, agh!) I get your point though.

Bike riding is my second favorite aerobic exercise. My favorite is cross-country skiing, although at my size it can quickly become anaerobic when going uphill. It's too bad Texans don't get many opportunities to participate without travelling to snow country.:D

This has been a good thread, guys, with much useful information. It's quite the contrast from the groin- conditioning malarkey.

:toast:
Larry Gusaas

MarkF
24th October 2001, 11:56
Originally posted by lgusaas
I'm fifty-two now, with half my life ahead of me. Part of my reason for weight training is to prepare for an active and healthy latter portion of my life when I eventually get into it...

Huh? How many people do you know who are 104 years old?

Mark

joe yang
24th October 2001, 22:39
Bike to work, 16 miles round trip, every other day. In between, an hour of heavy bag drills, in the "iron pit", a "one thousand cut drill" work out. Teach two classes, two nights a week, training along. Black belt class bi-weekly. Add a heavy schedule of hiking and kayaking. Pushing 50, I don't wear spandex, just as a rule, but I'm not overweight.

By the way, we have a saying too, "That's not fat, that's correctional muscle."

Kimpatsu
29th October 2001, 06:30
Hi, all.
Since everyone seems to be posting their workout schedules, I thought I'd chip in: I train in Shorinji Kempo three times a week, and go to the gym at least three times a week (non-training nights) to run on the track and do rep weights, for all-round fitness. SK is highly aerobic, certainly during kihon: Brief spurts of intense activity followed by a brief rest. Running helps keep me from gasping and wheezing during training. I find that the gym workout helps me maintain a basic level of fitness so I can enjoy SK training more. I'm not going for the Arnold Schwarzeneggar look; just basic fitness is all.
I agree with Colin Linz's assessment of Bando Sensei, though. I was fortunate to train under him, both in Japan and at a European seminar in Britain over 10 years ago, and his movements were so smooth, he seemed to be gliding on ice. SK waza don't require strength, so big muscles aren't required to perform them. Having said that, since force = mass x acceleration, the more mass you have, the more force you can apply to tsuki or keri, assuming the same acceleration. Unless you go in for massive weight lifting though, the difference will be negligable. As a supplement to SK training, weight lifting and running are fine, but they will never take the place of my devotion to the art, and my lifetime quest to master it.
Best to all,
:smokin: