# A serious question to adept martial artists about physical fitness...



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

A serious question to adept martial artists about physical fitness...



I'll just be blunt with it. But please don't think I'm trolling. I am being sincere here and I am honestly curious.

Why do martial artists in general (emphasis IN GENERAL), traditional or MMA, know so little about the science of strength and conditioning?

I'll give you an example... Many many months ago, either here or in another martial arts forum, I saw a very classic, very uneducated response with regards to me commenting about certain martial artists in a youtube video having great physiques. I said that I thought they have great physiques, and I got this sort of response:

*"Martial arts training builds a lean, functional physique as opposed to useless bulky muscles."
*
Any person experienced enough in the field of physical fitness would tell you how uneducated and amateurish such a comment is. I know, because I'm one of them. I was a competitive powerlifter back in my teens and have never struggled with matters of strength training.

But often, both on TV and the internet, I see dozens upon dozens of strength and conditioning coaches employing stupid approaches to their athletes.

Why is this? Is martial arts so skill-oriented that even with absolute shitty strength and conditioning, skilled martial artists would still dominate?

Your thoughts are appreciated. And also, I'm not trolling (ignore my avatar). I'm just really curious about this.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 26, 2017)

I dont agree with your premis so much.

Of course as a side to that with MMA specifically there are weight classes. So with huge muscles you fight a guy with a fundamentally bigger frame. Who is then not as likley to fatigue.

So you look at a guy like nick diaz. Who also does triathlons. And is in great physical shape but not exactly massively built.












On the streets. Bigger is usually better.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I dont agree with your premis so much.
> 
> Of course as a side to that with MMA specifically there are weight classes. So with huge muscles you fight a guy with a fundamentally bigger frame. Who is then not as likley to fatigue.
> 
> On the streets. Bigger is usually better.



I don't understand what you're saying at all...


----------



## drop bear (Nov 26, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I don't understand what you're saying at all...



Big guys gas out more quickly.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Big guys gas out more quickly.



I know that. But it doesn't change the fact that lots of martial artists are ignorant with training for physical fitness. A good example is Buakaw and his camp. Instead of doing beneficial barbell squats, he replaces them with machine squats. And his stupid-*** trainers made him do planks, which is as useful as a bikini in the winter time.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 26, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I know that. But it doesn't change the fact that lots of martial artists are ignorant with training for physical fitness. A good example is Buakaw and his camp. Instead of doing beneficial barbell squats, he replaces them with machine squats. And his stupid-*** trainers made him do planks, which is as useful as a bikini in the winter time.



Does Buakaw suffer from not being physical enough in fights?

Is this a form over function debate?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 26, 2017)

This is like the handweights debate.

The argument is scientifically handweights dont do much at all for boxers.

The counter argument is Tripple g does them.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> This is like the handweights debate.
> 
> The argument is scientifically handweights dont do much at all for boxers.
> 
> The counter argument is Tripple g does them.



That's bad logic. Saying that X is good because Badass Joe does it is like saying you'll achieve Arnold Schwarzenegger's (prime) physique by doing Arnold Schwarzenegger's exact training routine.

It doesn't work that way.

There are exceptions to the rules. Golovkin is one of these exceptions.

A vast majority of boxers would benefit more from direct shoulder work bodybuilding style than swinging light dumbbells in the air. The carryover is strong enough that despite the lack of specificity in training, it will still be greatly beneficial.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 26, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> That's bad logic. Saying that X is good because Badass Joe does it is like saying you'll achieve Arnold Schwarzenegger's (prime) physique by doing Arnold Schwarzenegger's exact training routine.
> 
> It doesn't work that way.
> 
> ...




Well it is also bad logic to say Arnold is doing it wrong without evidence of doing it right.

Or buakaw or golovkin.

If it is hard then it is doing something.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 26, 2017)

Perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do.



Possible. But I contend that I'd make a better strength and conditioning coach than A LOT (and I do mean A LOT) of MMA coaches out there. My expertise has the foundation of theoretical knowledge plus practical experience. Like I said, I was a competitve powerlifter as a teen. I have, with very minimal training, have achieved a 405-pound Olympic style, pause-at-the-bottom squat. If I took this strength coaching thing seriously, I'd make it big. I know I can. It's just that I don't have the work ethic for it.

Let us please not question my credentials and just focus on the topic at hand, which is: Why are many MMA strength and conditioning coaches so ignorant?


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 26, 2017)

Because it's martial arts not a fitness gym. As long as you work hard and get a good sweat on who cares about the science of fitness I'm there to train martial arts. No I know barely anything about sport science but I know how to work out just fine


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 26, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Possible. But I contend that I'd make a better strength and conditioning coach than A LOT (and I do mean A LOT) of MMA coaches out there. My expertise has the foundation of theoretical knowledge plus practical experience. Like I said, I was a competitve powerlifter as a teen. I have, with very minimal training, have achieved a 405-pound Olympic style, pause-at-the-bottom squat. If I took this strength coaching thing seriously, I'd make it big. I know I can. It's just that I don't have the work ethic for it.
> 
> Let us please not question my credentials and just focus on the topic at hand, which is: Why are many MMA strength and conditioning coaches so ignorant?


Yeah fine you're a powerlifter good for you doesn't mean you a thing about martial arts. Weight lifting doesn't make you good at martial arts at all. Your 405 pound Olympic squat means absoloutely nothing in the martial arts and wouldn't help you at all in a fight.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Because it's martial arts not a fitness gym. As long as you work hard and get a good sweat on who cares about the science of fitness I'm there to train martial arts. No I know barely anything about sport science but I low how to work out just fine



This is actually a good answer. lol. Thanks.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Yeah fine you're a powerlifter good for you doesn't mean you a thing about martial arts. Weight lifting doesn't make you good at martial arts at all. Your 405 pound Olympic squat means absoloutely nothing in the martial arts and wouldn't help you at all in a fight.



This is debatable. If two martial artists with the same bodyweight and build and height were tested for the power of, let's say their spinning back kick, and these two martial artists are equally adept at spinning back kick technique, the stronger martial artist will hit harder. That's an unmistakable fact.

Strength plays a role in martial arts. That's why MMA has weight divisions. Bigger guys have the strength advantage.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 26, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Possible. But I contend that I'd make a better strength and conditioning coach than A LOT (and I do mean A LOT) of MMA coaches out there. My expertise has the foundation of theoretical knowledge plus practical experience. Like I said, I was a competitve powerlifter as a teen. I have, with very minimal training, have achieved a 405-pound Olympic style, pause-at-the-bottom squat. If I took this strength coaching thing seriously, I'd make it big. I know I can. It's just that I don't have the work ethic for it.
> 
> Let us please not question my credentials and just focus on the topic at hand, which is: Why are many MMA strength and conditioning coaches so ignorant?


Ok how about you don't know as much as you think you do.
If you think you would be so good at it, go and do it and stop
Whining about it.
How about this..since your complaining about deep squats, what happens when you have millions of dollars on the line and your athlete injures himself due to your inexperience  having him do power squats


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Ok how about you don't know as much as you think you do.
> If you think you would be so good at it, go and do it and stop
> Whining about it.
> How about this..since your complaining about deep squats, what happens when you have millions of dollars on the line and your athlete injures himself due to your inexperience  having him do power squats



Wait, what are you talking about? Who's complaining about deep squats? I LOVE deep squats. They're a staple in my training.

By power squats you meant wide-stance and low position on your back, right? I used to do them back in high school. Now not anymore. Good exercise for the posterior chain but I don't do them now.

I have a little experience coaching others. And I was damn good at it.

But enough about me please. Let's talk about martial artists and why a lot of them seem to have great ignorance with strength training...


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 26, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Wait, what are you talking about? Who's complaining about deep squats? I LOVE deep squats. They're a staple in my training.
> 
> By power squats you meant wide-stance and low position on your back, right? I used to do them back in high school. Now not anymore. Good exercise for the posterior chain but I don't do them now.
> 
> ...


But that's where your not getting it, it is all about you.  Your making a claim of others ignorance without understanding your own. The fact that you are asking a question infers the assumption that you don't know,,,thus are ignorant.
But of course the juxtapose position would be that you feel you do know and are not really asking a question but rather making a derogatory  rhetorical statement....which is trolling.
Assuming for a second your not trolling, your question is why the world does things that you think are stupid. If that is the basis of your question then you need to look in the mirror and answer that one for yourself. There is no use in asking us.
Now if you want to rephrase your question and delve into specifics I'm sure some of us could be of some help.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> But that's where your not getting it, it is all about you.  Your making a claim of others ignorance without understanding your own. The fact that you are asking a question infers the assumption that you don't know,,,thus are ignorant.
> But of course the juxtapose position would be that you feel you do know and are not really asking a question but rather making a derogatory  rhetorical statement....which is trolling.
> Assuming for a second your not trolling, your question is why the world does things that you think are stupid. If that is the basis of your question then you need to look in the mirror and answer that one for yourself. There is no use in asking us.
> Now if you want to rephrase your question and delve into specifics I'm sure some of us could be of some help.



My original question is this...

*Why do martial artists in general (emphasis IN GENERAL), traditional or MMA, know so little about the science of strength and conditioning?*

I understand that this question of mine has certain implications within it. It is this one: I think I know better than you...

Here's the thing...

Let's be real here. I have experience and knowledge. I've been in and out of the world of iron and bodybuilding and powerlifting and weightlifting. I've seen stuff and experienced stuff. I know what works and what doesn't. I've done every workout imaginable. I'm 26 years old after all. I'm not that old, but I'm old enough to know stuff. I think you should give me some merit.

It is my opinion that a lot (not all) of martial artists and their trainers have it wrong when it comes to strength training. They have them do kettlebells instead of barbells, and pink weights instead of kettlebells. They do workouts that has zero carryover to their chosen sport, do marathon running instead of the more appropriate sprints (or other workouts that tax the same "energy system".), and _skip squats and deadlifts in favor of CURLS!
_
Those things I mentioned are blatantly stupid regardless of what sport you are training for. Maybe there are exceptions, like arm wrestling where curls are a priority. But for the vast majority of a lot of martial artists, they have it wrong...

The pinnacle of strength training is barbell lifting. And I am a man who specializes in that...


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 26, 2017)

In one breath you’re saying “don’t make it about me.”  In another breath you’re saying “I could do so much better.”

Do you see the paradox here?  You can’t have it both ways.

There’s misinformed people in every facet of life.  MA training is no different. And you’re judging by what you see in videos, read in blogs, etc.  That’s only a small snapshot of the entire thing.

Many people are misinformed.  Even professional athletes.  My theory is they’re truly misinformed and doing the wrong thing, yet they’re still successful, then they’re successful despite the misinformation and not because of it.  But again, seeing one or a couple things they’re doing “wrong” doesn’t mean they’re doing everything wrong.  Just because that boxer punches with weights in his hands doesn’t mean he doesn’t do anything else nor does it mean everything else he does is wrong.  It’s ONE thing in his training, not his entire training.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 26, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> My original question is this...
> 
> *Why do martial artists in general (emphasis IN GENERAL), traditional or MMA, know so little about the science of strength and conditioning?*
> 
> ...


How many competitive martial artists have you been around during strength & conditioning sessions?  How do you know for a fact that this is what’s predominantly the norm?

Edit:  This is a bit of a stretch,  it how do you know what they’re saying they’re doing and what they’re actually doing are the same thing?  Perhaps a bit of gamesmanship?


----------



## skribs (Nov 26, 2017)

This is kinda like a "my art is better than your art" or "my Dad can beat up your Dad", except it's "my workout is better than your workout."


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

skribs said:


> This is kinda like a "my art is better than your art" or "my Dad can beat up your Dad", except it's "my workout is better than your workout."



I apologize to all if it seemed that way. I was defending my merit...


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 26, 2017)

So ignoring all the signs that you're a troll (from the initial post): The first issue is that you're saying you have experience, but you don't not really. You have experience in lifting for competitions/bodybuilding, which has different priorities than martial arts (I'll explain why in the bottom). You also stated you're experience comes from doing the different workouts, but again that is you doing them for the purposes that you have, and you haven't mentioned any education in personal training. There are people on this board, including people whom have already commented, whom have probably done the same workouts as you, for the purpose of martial arts, for longer than you've been alive, and whom have had education and work in a field related to personal training.

That all probably sounds like I'm bashing you, trying an appeal to authority, or making the same implication as 





> *Martial arts training builds a lean, functional physique as opposed to useless bulky muscles*


 That's not what I'm doing. Just explaining to you that the issue (may be) a lack of knowledge on your part of training for martial arts, rather than the martial artists lack of understanding. Don't get me wrong, there are many MA's out there who don't know this stuff, but that will also be explained in the bottom. But for two examples: You suggested that long-distance running is not useful, which is false according to the professional trainers I've talked to, as it builds an aerobic base. Quick search found this link as well MMA Specific Running Program To Provide The Necessary Conditioning in The Cage. Doing sprints,  HIIT, etc. is also incredibly important, but so is the running. According to the livestrong site, if you're training to box, run long-distance 2-3 days and HIIT 2+ days (Home Boxing Exercises). That's not something you would learn from powerlifting/bodybuilding/etc., because you're never going to have to go for 12 rounds when your bodybuilding. Regarding the line I quoted earlier, bigger muscles CAN make you gas out more. In a street fight that's probably not going to matter all that much, but depending on what you're training for, there is a trade-off there.

So now as an actual answer to your question. IMO (And this is very simplified), there are two types of martial artists: those who compete and those who don't. Even if I was a bodybuilder/powerlifter, and I taught at a dojo, I wouldn't be using that knowledge, for either type of MA.

For those who compete, weight classes comes into play, Drop Bear explained why pretty succinctly with 





> Of course as a side to that with MMA specifically there are weight classes. So with huge muscles you fight a guy with a fundamentally bigger frame. Who is then not as likley to fatigue.


. You don't want to be too bulky and end up in too high of a weight class.

For those who don't compete, the focus is not on fighting (competitively), it's on learning a martial art. For that, there's no need to bulk up, it's just learning skills. If you want to defend yourself, you should probably be working out, or learning weapon-based MA (or both), but you're going to the dojo to learn their martial art, not to get big. And just because someone knows how to strike/grapple/etc. doesn't mean they have any obligation to also know how to build muscle properly (unless they advertise that).[/QUOTE]


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> So ignoring all the signs that you're a troll (from the initial post): The first issue is that you're saying you have experience, but you don't not really. You have experience in lifting for competitions/bodybuilding, which has different priorities than martial arts (I'll explain why in the bottom). You also stated you're experience comes from doing the different workouts, but again that is you doing them for the purposes that you have, and you haven't mentioned any education in personal training. There are people on this board, including people whom have already commented, whom have probably done the same workouts as you, for the purpose of martial arts, for longer than you've been alive, and whom have had education and work in a field related to personal training.
> 
> That all probably sounds like I'm bashing you, trying an appeal to authority, or making the same implication as  That's not what I'm doing. Just explaining to you that the issue (may be) a lack of knowledge on your part of training for martial arts, rather than the martial artists lack of understanding. Don't get me wrong, there are many MA's out there who don't know this stuff, but that will also be explained in the bottom. But for two examples: You suggested that long-distance running is not useful, which is false according to the professional trainers I've talked to, as it builds an aerobic base. Quick search found this link as well MMA Specific Running Program To Provide The Necessary Conditioning in The Cage. Doing sprints,  HIIT, etc. is also incredibly important, but so is the running. According to the livestrong site, if you're training to box, run long-distance 2-3 days and HIIT 2+ days (Home Boxing Exercises). That's not something you would learn from powerlifting/bodybuilding/etc., because you're never going to have to go for 12 rounds when your bodybuilding. Regarding the line I quoted earlier, bigger muscles CAN make you gas out more. In a street fight that's probably not going to matter all that much, but depending on what you're training for, there is a trade-off there.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]



So bottom line... What's your point? Sorry. I must've missed it. It was a long read. lol

I am aware that bigger guys can gas out more. As far as you mentioning that long-distance running is actually useful, that's new information for me... I've always thought that anaerobic endurance is more important in MMA and boxing than aerobic endurance, because you attack the enemy with short bursts of power. I was at least semi-aware of the importance of aerobic endurance, but I've always thought that it was not as important as the ability to tolerate lactic acid buildup due to short bursts of intense exertions. So that's new to me. Thanks for the information.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 26, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Possible. But I contend that I'd make a better strength and conditioning coach than A LOT (and I do mean A LOT) of MMA coaches out there. My expertise has the foundation of theoretical knowledge plus practical experience. Like I said, I was a competitve powerlifter as a teen. I have, with very minimal training, have achieved a 405-pound Olympic style, pause-at-the-bottom squat. If I took this strength coaching thing seriously, I'd make it big. I know I can. It's just that I don't have the work ethic for it.
> 
> Let us please not question my credentials and just focus on the topic at hand, which is: Why are many MMA strength and conditioning coaches so ignorant?



Which coaches are you suggesting are sub par?

I mean we could look at their credentials.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 26, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> So bottom line... What's your point? Sorry. I must've missed it. It was a long read. lol



Yeah, I ramble sometimes. Too many thoughts in my head to get out. There were a couple points, but the overall point: Martial arts instructors are supposed to be skilled in what they do. If they train people for the martial art and/or self-defense, they should be skilled in the martial art/the techniques. If they train people for fighting, they should be skilled in the techniques allowed in the competitions, along with physical conditioning _for fighting in those formats._ specifically because of weight classes, when it comes to strength-training, it's different than power-lifting/bodybuilding/etc. So the knowledge and experience you have won't translate, and may actually harm, a professional fighter if it results in them being in a disadvantageous weight class, or gassing out in a long fight (think 12 round boxing match).

[QUOTE[I am aware that bigger guys can gas out more. As far as you mentioning that long-distance running is actually useful, that's new information for me... I've always thought that anaerobic endurance is more important in MMA and boxing than aerobic endurance, because you attack the enemy with short bursts of power. I was at least semi-aware of the importance of aerobic endurance, but I've always thought that it was not as important as the ability to tolerate lactic acid buildup due to short bursts of intense exertions. So that's new to me. Thanks for the information.[/QUOTE]

They're actually both important, I personally think anaerobic is more important from my own experience, but I don't know of any actual evidence that when it comes to fighting in a ring one is more important than the other.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Which coaches are you suggesting are sub par?
> 
> I mean we could look at their credentials.



The ones training Buakaw here: 






I'm not particularly impressed by the application of planks. I can understand the balancing thing in the end and the agility training in the beginning. But the planks? No bro. Just do weighted situps with heavy weight. Even a sit up machine would be better than planks because at least you can appropriately overload your abs the right way. I also recommend turkish get-ups...

For the obliques, dumbbell side bends, progressively using heavier weight, is infinitely better than planks. Like this: 






If you want, you can show me these MMA coaches and I'll critique what they're doing wrong. I'm confident that I'm bound to find someone doing ****.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Yeah, I ramble sometimes. Too many thoughts in my head to get out. There were a couple points, but the overall point: Martial arts instructors are supposed to be skilled in what they do. If they train people for the martial art and/or self-defense, they should be skilled in the martial art/the techniques. If they train people for fighting, they should be skilled in the techniques allowed in the competitions, along with physical conditioning _for fighting in those formats._ specifically because of weight classes, when it comes to strength-training, it's different than power-lifting/bodybuilding/etc. So the knowledge and experience you have won't translate, and may actually harm, a professional fighter if it results in them being in a disadvantageous weight class, or gassing out in a long fight (think 12 round boxing match).
> 
> [QUOTE[I am aware that bigger guys can gas out more. As far as you mentioning that long-distance running is actually useful, that's new information for me... I've always thought that anaerobic endurance is more important in MMA and boxing than aerobic endurance, because you attack the enemy with short bursts of power. I was at least semi-aware of the importance of aerobic endurance, but I've always thought that it was not as important as the ability to tolerate lactic acid buildup due to short bursts of intense exertions. So that's new to me. Thanks for the information.
> 
> They're actually both important, I personally think anaerobic is more important from my own experience, but I don't know of any actual evidence that when it comes to fighting in a ring one is more important than the other.



I'd bank that anaerobic endurance is *much more *important for the explosive athlete who relies on explosive attacks. Now, for a guy like Mayweather, a feather fist, it's a different story. But if you're talking about wrestling for MMA, you NEED anaerobic endurance MUCH MORE than aerobic. You are, after all, grappling a heavy and resisting body. That is all about STRENGTH and ANAEROBIC endurance.

If we wanna get technical about it, such an activity (wrestling) requires the usage of the energy system that involves the body's use of ATP reserves, and the muscle's glycogen stores. If we are considering that, strength and anaerobic endurance becomes the priority.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 26, 2017)

Planks are very good.  Just ask Mike Boyle.  He’s also pretty much anti-squats.  If you don’t know Mike Boyle, google him; his credentials and client list speaks for itself.

As far as aerobic training for predominantly anaerobic athletes/sports - recovery.  Boxing isn’t purely anaerobic.  Throw a hard combo, get out, get back in.  The combo is anaerobic, but there’s aerobic recovery in between the anaerobic periods and between rounds.  Aerobic conditioning leads to increased red blood cells (which carry oxygen), increased capillaries in the muscles and lungs to get oxygen in and carbon dioxide out quicker, and so on.  Boxers partly train to be able to get their heart rate and breathing rate down to as close to resting as possible between rounds.  Aerobic conditioning is a huge part of that.  Looking at cellular respiration, water is a critical part of the energy process.  Boxers and fighters drink minimal water during fights partially so they don’t throw up when they’re hit.  The better aerobic conditioning, the the longer they can go.

Anaerobic process only last so long.  Aerobic processes are absolutely needed to help recovery and keep a fighter in the fight.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 26, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I'd bank that anaerobic endurance is *much more *important for the explosive athlete who relies on explosive attacks. Now, for a guy like Mayweather, a feather fist, it's a different story. But if you're talking about wrestling for MMA, you NEED anaerobic endurance MUCH MORE than aerobic. You are, after all, grappling a heavy and resisting body. That is all about STRENGTH and ANAEROBIC endurance.
> 
> If we wanna get technical about it, such an activity (wrestling) requires the usage of the energy system that involves the body's use of ATP reserves, and the muscle's glycogen stores. If we are considering that, strength and anaerobic endurance becomes the priority.


Do you have experience/training grappling? There's a lot more than just strength/explosive energy involved, there's a lot of waiting, conserving your energy, avoiding pushing yourself to that limit until you need to. A lot of time also sent trying to regain energy while stuck between transitions. This is another example of you having related experience, rather than direct experience as a fighter is interfering with your view of MA training/conditioning.

Regarding strength, I've seen a 100 pound women playing around with someone over twice her weight like he's a rag doll. Strength is definitely important, but it's not the be all and end all of grappling.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Do you have experience/training grappling? There's a lot more than just strength/explosive energy involved, there's a lot of waiting, conserving your energy, avoiding pushing yourself to that limit until you need to. A lot of time also sent trying to regain energy while stuck between transitions. This is another example of you having related experience, rather than direct experience as a fighter is interfering with your view of MA training/conditioning.
> 
> Regarding strength, I've seen a 100 pound women playing around with someone over twice her weight like he's a rag doll. Strength is definitely important, but it's not the be all and end all of grappling.



That thing you mentioned. The one about the 100-pound woman ragdolling a 200+ pound man. I'm gonna bet that the skill disparity was astronomical it's not even funny. Like pitting a pre-white belt against an MMA legend. I don't think that's fair. If you teach that guy *a little bit *of technique and drill him for A WEEK, he'd easily trample the woman. If not, then that's his incompetence, NOT a testimony of strength being unimportant.

You also didn't mention if the guy was either fat or muscular. Was he even in shape?

I have a little experience wrestling, yes. I lost about 80% of my wrestling matches. I was competing against kids who actually wrestled. lol.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 26, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> That thing you mentioned. The one about the 100-pound woman ragdolling a 200+ pound man. I'm gonna bet that the skill disparity was astronomical it's not even funny. Like pitting a pre-white belt against an MMA legend. I don't think that's fair. If you teach that guy *a little bit *of technique and drill him for A WEEK, he'd easily trample the woman. If not, then that's his incompetence, NOT a testimony of strength being unimportant.



Oh yeah, giant skill disparity. She's been training for years and he hasn't. But he's been training a couple months at this point, she still ragdolls him. He's muscular. He's one of the guys that if you look at him, its clear he's got muscles, and he's been doing kickboxing for a long time.



> I have a little experience wrestling, yes. I lost about 80% of my wrestling matches. I was competing against kids who actually wrestled. lol.



Would it be a fair guess that those guys were less muscular than you, based on your previous posts? So you had enough technique to compete, but would still lose?

I'm not trying to turn this into a technique vs. strength thing, just pointing out there are different aspects outside of strength, that come into play in competitive formats. IMO probably not as much in a 'street fight' or an SD situation. But both are important, not knocking one or the other.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 26, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Would it be a fair guess that those guys were less muscular than you, based on your previous posts? So you had enough technique to compete, but would still lose?



Actually no... A lot of them were pretty fit and strong. There are exceptions though. I once lost a wrestling match against a relatively weak kid. And I once struggled against an 9-year old kid when I was 14 years old.

I used to wrestle against this 250-pound kid regularly, but he was fat. I was stronger than him gym-wise. Better bench press, better deadlift, etcetera, but he still beat me. To be fair, I was always trying to lift him off the ground. He was too heavy for me. And his wins against me involved a lot of waiting for me to get tired from trying to lift him. lol

And then there was this seasoned greco-roman wrestler guy. Stronger than me for sure and a skilled wrestler. I wrestled with him probably half a dozen times and always lost. The guy was good...

I once wrestled against a puny kid whom I could've hurt real badly with a bear hug. Obviously I didn't and I just let him win. And the reason why I lost was because *a bear hug was literally the ONLY path to victory that I got. *I had no idea how to pin him down or submit him. A severe lack of skill... If it was a real match though, I would've given him something to cry about. Bear hugs are painful. lol

There was also this time when I wrestled against a REAL man. VERY VERY muscular and strong. Now that was a totally different experience. *His strength clearly showed. *In less than 5 seconds in the match, he suplexed me like I was a pillow. *That right there is a testament to the importance of strength. *You can't pull that off with just technique. Think of guys like Aleksandr Karelin. Would he have been able to do the things that he did if he was weak? Do you think he would've been a legend without his muscles and strength?

That's my point.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 27, 2017)

Funny thing is your talking so much but what's your actual experience with martial arts...not weights but martial arts


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Funny thing is your talking so much but what's your actual experience with martial arts...not weights but martial arts



Aside from what I just mentioned literally right before this post?

I've been in 13 street fights from my pre-teens to my early 20's. REAL fights, where the enemy had REAL intent to hurt me. Believe me, I know. lol

I also have a little bit of boxing experience in high school. I learned early on that I'm a damn good "swarmer", or I think that's what they call them... Basically, the style of boxing where you try to get up close and throw hooks and uppercuts, as opposed to peppering guys with jabs from the outside. I seriously hurt a guy in a sparring session with that style. Enough for him to call a time out. lol


----------



## Buka (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> A serious question to adept martial artists about physical fitness...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bee, I guess it would depend on what Martial Artists you've trained with. Many of the Martial Artists I know have as much experience and knowledge about strength and conditioning as anyone, including people who majored in the the related fields in college. At least in how they relate to Martial Arts and fighting. But you started the OP with "physical fitness" That's a big field and a big part of strength and conditioning, as I'm sure you know. And keep up the good training and squats and the like, but I urge you to seek out older guys who still do that kind of training and still compete in it. They will have a lot to offer you - because you ain't going to be in your twenties for long.

I know about your boxing and wrestling, both of which I love. But how many Martial Artists have you been around? Not students who've trained for six months, but actual Martial Artists? At least related to "_Why do martial artists in general (emphasis IN GENERAL), traditional or MMA, know so little about the science of strength and conditioning_".

Where does that view come from? If not from actually training with a lot of Martial Arts Instructor/trainers/whatever, then where? Something you've observed? Read about, what?


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> This is debatable. If two martial artists with the same bodyweight and build and height were tested for the power of, let's say their spinning back kick, and these two martial artists are equally adept at spinning back kick technique, the stronger martial artist will hit harder. That's an unmistakable fact.


I don't quite understand this, if they are the same height, weight, build, how is one stronger than the other?


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

Buka said:


> Bee, I guess it would depend on what Martial Artists you've trained with. Many of the Martial Artists I know have as much experience and knowledge about strength and conditioning as anyone, including people who majored in the the related fields in college. At least in how they relate to Martial Arts and fighting. But you started the OP with "physical fitness" That's a big field and a big part of strength and conditioning, as I'm sure you know. And keep up the good training and squats and the like, but I urge you to seek out older guys who still do that kind of training and still compete in it. They will have a lot to offer you - because you ain't going to be in your twenties for long.
> 
> I know about your boxing and wrestling, both of which I love. But how many Martial Artists have you been around? Not students who've trained for six months, but actual Martial Artists? At least related to "_Why do martial artists in general (emphasis IN GENERAL), traditional or MMA, know so little about the science of strength and conditioning_".
> 
> Where does that view come from? If not from actually training with a lot of Martial Arts Instructor/trainers/whatever, then where? Something you've observed? Read about, what?



The view came from the internet and TV. An example would be Mayweather (on TV) punching the air with light dumbbells instead of doing direct shoulder training, bodybuilding style. Even if bodybuilding is not Mayweather's goal, bodybuilding-style training with a modification to suit his purpose (shoulder endurance) would be ultimately more superior than punching the air with light dumbbells.

Another one would be a certain fighter I saw on TV too. He was an amateur but was competitive. It was an episode in some MMA show that I forgot the title of. He was doing "backyard training" with push ups. There's nothing wrong with push ups, but he was doing it in the following way: There were two dumbbells on the floor. He knelt down and held both dumbbells (the dumbbells weren't round. They had a straight surface, making them "stick" to the ground.) with his hands and began doing push ups that way. All well and good, but every time he pushed his body up, he'd do a row (a pulling movement), pulling one dumbbell up, and then doing a push up again. He alternated which of the two dumbbells he'd lift every time he pushed himself up (nothing wrong with that). I've seen that done in a gym before and I think it's a stupid exercise. I can elaborate why I think that if you want me to.

Another one was Anderson Silva doing ballistic (explosive/speed-oriented) bench presses with a Smith machine barbell while lying on the floor. A stupid and pointless exercise as well. I can elaborate why if you want me to.

Another one would be Rich "Ace" Franklin (or someone close, I'm not 100% if it was really him.) doing circuit training. Circuit training sucks. *I used to train my mother in an apartment gym with circuits, and looking back, I can honestly say I'm ashamed of what I did. I could've done a better job and just made her do straight sets.
*
And then you get the countless martial artists all over the world who absolutely renounce lifting weights, saying stupid **** like "It'll make you slow" or "It'll make you less flexible" (the latter has a grain of truth to it. But JUST A GRAIN.).

And lastly, this video...

Beijing 2008 Martial Arts Training Camp: SHUAI JIAO SPECIAL

(There's some good stuff in that video, but the one I want to point out are the exercises these martial artists were doing that involved those cement weights and that light barbell. I can think of a million other ways to give you a better, more strengthening workout. Workouts that will benefit your martial arts,)


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> I don't quite understand this, if they are the same height, weight, build, how is one stronger than the other?



Your ignorance proves my point. Please don't take offense with what I'm about to say.

You're (at least likely) a martial artist and you know nothing about strength training...

Weight training is more than just muscle and physique. *It also has to do with your brain and central nervous system (CNS). *Our muscles are made up of motor units, which are made up of fibers. Every motor unit is connected to a nerve that is connected with our CNSs. Our CNSs are the ones responsible for activating our motor units to fire. When the motor units fire or get activated, our muscles flex. *The more motor units you can activate, the stronger the force your muscle produces.*

Strong people are not only bulky. They also have the ability to activate more motor units compared to the untrained beginner. That is key. This concept is something that I like to call "neuromuscular efficiency." There is a reason the sport of powerlifting and weightlifting exist. And there is a reason why despite competing against athletes of the same size and weight, they'd lift bigger weights or smaller weights compared to the others instead of having the same level of strength.

This knowledge is Powerlifting 101.


----------



## Buka (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> The view came from the internet and TV. An example would be Mayweather (on TV) punching the air with light dumbbells instead of doing direct shoulder training, bodybuilding style. Even if bodybuilding is not Mayweather's goal, bodybuilding-style training with a modification to suit his purpose (shoulder endurance) would be ultimately more superior than punching the air with light dumbbells.
> 
> Another one would be a certain fighter I saw on TV too. He was an amateur but was competitive. It was an episode in some MMA show that I forgot the title of. He was doing "backyard training" with push ups. There's nothing wrong with push ups, but he was doing it in the following way: There were two dumbbells on the floor. He knelt down and held both dumbbells (the dumbbells weren't round. They had a straight surface, making them "stick" to the ground.) with his hands and began doing push ups that way. All well and good, but every time he pushed his body up, he'd do a row (a pulling movement), pulling one dumbbell up, and then doing a push up again. He alternated which of the two dumbbells he'd lift every time he pushed himself up (nothing wrong with that). I've seen that done in a gym before and I think it's a stupid exercise. I can elaborate why I think that if you want me to.
> 
> ...



As for shoulders and how they apply to fighting or boxing, what would you say is the boxing exercise that most builds the shoulders? I ask because there is a specificity to exercises - as how they actually apply to high level fighting.

If I were to debate you on the proper ways, form, diet, benefits, rest periods yada yada of heavy squats based on what I've see on TV and the internet, but never actually did them myself, you would reply.....?

And, if you put even a tenth of the effort developing social skills as you have squatting, you would be rewarded in ways you aren't even aware of yet.


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Weight training is more than just muscle and physique. *It also has to do with your brain and central nervous system (CNS). *Our muscles are made up of motor units, which are made up of fibers. Every motor unit is connected to a nerve that is connected with our CNSs. Our CNSs are the ones responsible for activating our motor units to fire. When the motor units fire or get activated, our muscles flex. *The more motor units you can activate, the stronger the force your muscle produces.*


And you don't think MA training works the brain and the CNS allowing you to activate more motor units?


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

Buka said:


> If I were to debate you on the proper ways, form, diet, benefits, rest periods yada yada of heavy squats based on what I've see on TV and the internet, but never actually did them myself, you would reply.....?



I'd reply. Yes. And I'd give credit where credit is due. Just because you don't squat doesn't mean you don't know about it. It really is just a matter of doing your homework. Information is neither expensive nor unobtainable.

Would I agree with you on what you are saying? That depends on whether or not I think you're right or wrong. But ultimately, I wouldn't dismiss your words.

This reminds me of something from Ed Coan. Ed Coan, the greatest powerlifter of all time, once advised that amateurs should be allowed to do whatever they want. That's because you never really know if this amateur might discover something groundbreaking that's unheard of before that may skyrocket his strength to new heights.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> And you don't think MA training works the brain and the CNS allowing you to activate more motor units?



It does, _to a very very VERY limited extent.
_
To push your punching power or kicking power to new heights, you have to get stronger first before anything else. Strength is the foundation of speed. You won't be able to lift a light weight fast if you're not strong enough to even merely lift it at all.

Actual martial arts training is the icing on the cake. Weight-lifting is the base.

P. S. = To hit hard, velocity must be high.


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> It does, _to a very very VERY limited extent. _


That's interesting, what is your source for this?



Zombocalypse said:


> To push your punching power or kicking power to new heights, you have to get stronger first before anything else.


Well no you don't, you need good technique.  The two people that have hit me the hardest in training were both smaller than me, and I'm onmy 165cm. They didn't have what you consider to be power, and in fact one of them was female and had never been anywhere near weights in her life.  What she could do however was get all of her body weight into her strikes because her technique was so good.

You are also missing one key point in all of this.  The key to winning an MMA fight is not to have the most powerful punch, as points are not awarded for power they are awarded for significant strikes.  If you are in a 25 minute title fight you need to conserve energy, not put all your power into the first round.  As Connor McGregor says, precision beats power and I think he's a better MAs than we will ever be.  Yes you will win some fights if you concentrate your training on developing powerful punches and maybe TKO your first few opponents, but it's noy going to make you the best MA's around.  And that's also why MMA trainers train their fighters the way they do.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> It does, _to a very very VERY limited extent.
> _
> To push your punching power or kicking power to new heights, you have to get stronger first before anything else. Strength is the foundation of speed. You won't be able to lift a light weight fast if you're not strong enough to even merely lift it at all.
> 
> ...


Elite fighters’ hands speed tops out at a certain point.  As counterintuitive as it seems, there’s little different between a trained lightweight and heavyweight’s handspeed.  The real difference in punching power is effective mass used.  It’s buried somewhere in here...
Biomechanics of the head for Olympic boxer punches to the face

Throwing around effective mass is all about technique, not raw strength.  This is a skill.  Effective fighting is all about being able to hit someone at the right time with the right strike at the right target, and not getting knocked out in the process.  This is all skill.  Skill is the base.  Strength & conditioning is the “icing on the cake.”  A very thick icing, but icing nonetheless.  I won’t argue strength and conditioning aren’t crucial; but it begins with skill.  Being the strongest and fittest guy in the world won’t win you a fight if you have no idea what you’re doing.  Being a highly skilled guy will carry you a lot further.

My problem is too many people rely on skill as an excuse to not put any time into strength and conditioning.  Saying it’s irreverent is absurd; it’s laziness.  But the opposite is equally absurd.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Aside from what I just mentioned literally right before this post?
> 
> I've been in 13 street fights from my pre-teens to my early 20's. REAL fights, where the enemy had REAL intent to hurt me. Believe me, I know. lol
> 
> I also have a little bit of boxing experience in high school. I learned early on that I'm a damn good "swarmer", or I think that's what they call them... Basically, the style of boxing where you try to get up close and throw hooks and uppercuts, as opposed to peppering guys with jabs from the outside. I seriously hurt a guy in a sparring session with that style. Enough for him to call a time out. lol


Ah okay so basically nothing then....you seem proud that you have been in fights and happy that you hurt someone....so basically your ignorant about martial arts on a martial arts forum and calling everyone else ignorant....okay


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 27, 2017)

everything you need to know summed up in a few hours.  pay attention and you might learn something.


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> It does, _to a very very VERY limited extent.
> _
> To push your punching power or kicking power to new heights, you have to get stronger first before anything else. Strength is the foundation of speed. You won't be able to lift a light weight fast if you're not strong enough to even merely lift it at all.
> 
> ...


i agree to some extent with what you are saying, some maist have a low view of " strength training" seeking to develop techneque at the expense of being athletic.

but it stops there, being strong in power lifting doesn't do much to develop you athletic abilities, beyond building your base strengh,it can even work against your all round athletic abilities.

I'm not saying you shouldnt look to be as strong as you reasonably can, rather developing your cns to run, jump and move quickly is equally important as it endurance of strengh rather than just brute one off strengh

fighting is one of the most ardious physical events, up there with tri athletes events, its all round conditioning you need not just brute strengh

as such you need to train all the rep ranges, yes in the five to ten for strengh development, but also in the 10 to 20 and the,twenty to 50 and beyond.

then you want speed and agility and balance and reactions, and your,aerobic capacity. Just being able to dead lift 400lbs and bench 300 is only the beginning of physical fitness.

I'm not sure about you telling FM he is doing it wrong??????

punching with light dumbells is a good speed developer, I'm sure he has already sorted his shoulder strengh


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Aside from what I just mentioned literally right before this post?
> 
> I've been in 13 street fights from my pre-teens to my early 20's. REAL fights, where the enemy had REAL intent to hurt me. Believe me, I know. lol
> 
> I also have a little bit of boxing experience in high school. I learned early on that I'm a damn good "swarmer", or I think that's what they call them... Basically, the style of boxing where you try to get up close and throw hooks and uppercuts, as opposed to peppering guys with jabs from the outside. I seriously hurt a guy in a sparring session with that style. Enough for him to call a time out. lol


really 13 fights in 10 years, i racked up . Twice that many before i was 10, i stopped counting,after that, must have been two a week in my teenage years,


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> It does, _to a very very VERY limited extent.
> _
> To push your punching power or kicking power to new heights, you have to get stronger first before anything else. Strength is the foundation of speed. You won't be able to lift a light weight fast if you're not strong enough to even merely lift it at all.
> 
> ...


Um no just no...in martial arts the weights are the least important thing you frankly don't need to be lifting weights at all...you can do body weight exercises which in my opinion are more useful for martial than weights. Without the martial art techique you won't last long at all. Look at the early ufcs how well did the big muscular guys do against the skinny technical guy


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Um no just no...in martial arts the weights are the least important thing you frankly don't need to be lifting weights at all...you can do body weight exercises which in my opinion are more useful for martial than weights. Without the martial art techique you won't last long at all. Look at the early ufcs how well did the big muscular guys do against the skinny technical guy


body weight is what i mostly do, but body weights  is lifting WEIGHTS, but there are some big holes where using actual weights is far more convenient and possibly more efficient way of building strengh and conditioning , building progressive over load is quite complicated with BW . and for instance over head lifting and squatting are hard to replicate with body weight. I'm betting FM has a weight room at his disposal


----------



## skribs (Nov 27, 2017)

I mean, yes, let's criticize Floyd Mayweather, he's only 50-0 in boxing.  Anderson Silva, too.  He's only 34-8 in professional MMA.

Their workout programs are obviously terrible.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> A serious question to adept martial artists about physical fitness...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I got through the first page and got tired.  You have been given some good answers, but you started out not really wanting any, so you don't seen to recognize them.  Interestingly you do note that many strength and conditioning coaches don't know what they are doing.  Do you then wish to lump all martial artists and their schools together without thinking there may be some of what even we call McDojos?

But, why do you as a strength conditioner worry about martial artists?  Apparently you don't study any martial arts, or you would be more likely know the answer; power lifting and martial arts don't share a lot in study methods, since they wish to accomplish unrelated goals. 

Oh, another thing in your premise that is really silly is to say a skilled martial artist who has bad strength and conditioning, in general, an oxymoron.  But I would say a well trained martial artist, who has for some reason let (or had to let) his strength and conditioning lapse would still have the advantage, simply because he would know attacks you would not likely expect and therefore be able to defend against.  'Nuff said.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 27, 2017)

*Many martial practitioner's and mma coaches know a lot about exercise*.  Your premise that they do not is just not factual.  You may have run into a few uneducated folks out there but that does not mean everyone is.  Heck we have on this board a gentleman who was the strength and conditioning coach for LSU and has a PHD in the field.  Many martial practitioner's are looking to the cutting edge technology in the kinesiology field.  Generalized statements that you have made are just ignorant.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Possible. But I contend that I'd make a better strength and conditioning coach than A LOT (and I do mean A LOT) of MMA coaches out there. My expertise has the foundation of theoretical knowledge plus practical experience. Like I said, I was a competitve powerlifter as a teen. I have, with very minimal training, have achieved a 405-pound Olympic style, pause-at-the-bottom squat. If I took this strength coaching thing seriously, I'd make it big. I know I can. It's just that I don't have the work ethic for it.
> 
> Let us please not question my credentials and just focus on the topic at hand, which is: Why are many MMA strength and conditioning coaches so ignorant?


Powerlifting has very different needs from MMA and other martial arts. Your expertise in the one doesn't necessarily make you a good choice for the other.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> The pinnacle of strength training is barbell lifting.


Upon what do you base that conclusion?


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Possible. But I contend that I'd make a better strength and conditioning coach than A LOT (and I do mean A LOT) of MMA coaches out there. My expertise has the foundation of theoretical knowledge plus practical experience. Like I said, I was a competitve powerlifter as a teen. I have, with very minimal training, have achieved a 405-pound Olympic style, pause-at-the-bottom squat. If I took this strength coaching thing seriously, I'd make it big. I know I can. It's just that I don't have the work ethic for it.
> 
> Let us please not question my credentials and just focus on the topic at hand, which is: Why are many MMA strength and conditioning coaches so ignorant?


Actually, let's take your credentials in hand, both as a strength & conditioning coach, and a judge of martial arts training.  You've brought them into the game, so what are they?  Do you hold any certifications, licenses, teaching credentials?

Sure, there are lots of traditional exercises in martial arts that aren't that good, especially compared to modern techniques and methods of training.  Lots of them were developed by trial and error, in environments without much.  Of course, some of them are actually pretty darn good -- for their purpose.  Which isn't always what's obvious.  There are some downright dangerous and bad practices that people do, too.  But there are also lots of martial artists out there with actual credentials as sports trainers (both medical and "coach" to find a word to distinguish the two) or who are serious competitors in bodybuilding or power lifting, too...  Those are simply different aspects of their training...

But, y'know what?  I see just as many bad things or crazy things done in the gym.  Whether it's the guy who's doing "curls" that begins each rep by rocking on his toes and swinging back with his whole body, or the person who can't even figure out the right way to get into a piece of equipment...  they're all out there.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> T
> A vast majority of boxers would benefit more from direct shoulder work bodybuilding style than swinging light dumbbells in the air. The carryover is strong enough that despite the lack of specificity in training, it will still be greatly beneficial.



Of course, you may not realize what the goal of the exercise is, and I think you're underestimating the importance of specificity in training...  Certainly, shoulder exercises can strengthen the shoulder and help prevent injury.  But practicing (lightly) weighted punches can strengthen the specific muscles and work the specific kinesic chains involved in punching, and replicate PUNCHING with controlled, added stress...  Kind of like a runner might work on the muscles in his quads in the gym, then do form drills... before sprinting with a drag chute to add resistance to his run.  Or football linemen still hit the sled, even though they certainly spend a few hours a week in a gym, under the eyes of strength and conditioning coaches...


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> The pinnacle of strength training is barbell lifting. And I am a man who specializes in that...



Not in all contexts.

You seem to want to apply one set of measurements to everything, and it just doesn't work.

Sports conditioning is different then pure strength training, and while I would agree that a barbell is useful, it's not the pinnacle of strength training in all sports.

Most sports generate power through rotational movement, barbells don't simulate that at all.  You are very correct that a huge chunk of strength is CNS based, however in a barbell as the base training regime you are always pushing straight, pulling straight and always on a up / down plain of motion.  In sports (including martial arts) this is not how strength is applied.  More often it is applied on a horizontal plain, or a rotational plain, and most often a combination of those. 

Power in sports is also most often explosive, barbell training is rarely done explosively (Olympic lifts are a obvious exception)

You also knock planks a fair bit in favour of sit ups.  Yes, sit ups will overload the muscles more effectively.  But it's a different sort of action, sit ups are about creating motion, planks are about maintaining posture.  Like a dumbbell side bend vs a one sided farmers walk.  Both are useful and serve different purposes.

Another thing I think you are overlooking is that in a sports context a lot of the conditioning work should be done for injury prevention during the actual sport, not necessarily strength training for the activity.  A simple example would be if you are a boxer you might want to work rowing exercises and shoulder stability exercises to "correct" for all the explosive force exerted in "pushing" sort of actions.  If you are a golfer everything you do is one sided, you'll want to correct for that in S&C to avoid future problems in the hips, shoulders and knees.  

You are correct, there is a lack of S&C knowledge in martial arts as a whole, but that is the same in every sport.  We also get people that have S&C knowledge in another sport try to apply it directly too the martial arts, and that doesn't always work.  There are some really excellent S&C coaches in combat sports though, and other sports and I think most would not put the barbell as the pinnacle of the way they train athletes.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Upon what do you base that conclusion?



What do you mean? I don't understand your question. But I can tell you a lot of reasons why barbell lifting is in fact the end all and be all of strength training. I would argue that to the ends of the world. *There is no better strength training tool out there than barbell lifting. *Maybe for endurance it's a different story. But STRENGTH? It's blasphemy to say it isn't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> What do you mean? I don't understand your question. But I can tell you a lot of reasons why barbell lifting is in fact the end all and be all of strength training. I would argue that to the ends of the world. *There is no better strength training tool out there than barbell lifting. *Maybe for endurance it's a different story. But STRENGTH? It's blasphemy to say it isn't.


Strength training for specific purpose (sports strength) isn't a one-size-fits-all situation.


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> What do you mean? I don't understand your question. But I can tell you a lot of reasons why barbell lifting is in fact the end all and be all of strength training. I would argue that to the ends of the world. *There is no better strength training tool out there than barbell lifting. *Maybe for endurance it's a different story. But STRENGTH? It's blasphemy to say it isn't.


go on and then tell us some reasons why barbell training is the be all and END all of strengh training.

why is it better than say lifting logs or pushing cars or carrying heavy boxes


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Strength training for specific purpose (sports strength) isn't a one-size-fits-all situation.



Of course. But you also have to mind about the idea of "carryovers". Here's what it is...

Often times, when you raise your squat strength, you also raise your deadlift strength. Does this happen ALL the time? No it doesn't. As a matter of fact, I learned from experience that you have to deadlift in order to improve your deadlift. Or at the very least, *you have to hit your posterior chain very hard to raise your deadlift. *But there is a limit to that. You will never find a human being with a 400-pound squat not be able to deadlift at least 250. It's just not possible. The only exception that I can think of are those with decapitated fingers, hands, or arms. Another would be those with a genetic disorder involving super short arms. But those people don't really exist. It could be that they do, but that's beside the point.

Another example would be Shane Hamman. See below.







His jumping ability is a side effect of Olympic-style weightlifting training. He never did plyometrics, but his explosive strength is high. It's a side effect of squats and power cleans.

I can also paraphrase what *an actual MMA strength and conditioning coach *have said before in an interview. Unfortunately, I forgot his exact name and his exact words. But his message was crystal clear. Read below...

"Strength is important. The stronger you are, the less effort you'd need to exert to wrestle. And because you need to exert less effort, you naturally don't tire out as easily as other weaker opponents."

What does that say you ask? *It says that strength has a carryover to MMA performance. *Here's another one from the same person.

"I once trained a guy who couldn't knock out anybody if his life depended on it. After raising his deadlift to 455, he became a KO powerhouse."

There are many countless example of this. Squatting will raise everything from your sprinting speed to your IQ. I'm exaggerating, but you get the point, I'm sure. Muscles are functional. Strength is functional. Athleticism covers a lot of ground.


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Of course. But you also have to mind about the idea of "carryovers". Here's what it is...
> 
> Often times, when you raise your squat strength, you also raise your deadlift strength. Does this happen ALL the time? No it doesn't. As a matter of fact, I learned from experience that you have to deadlift in order to improve your deadlift. Or at the very least, *you have to hit your posterior chain very hard to raise your deadlift. *But there is a limit to that. You will never find a human being with a 400-pound squat not be able to deadlift at least 250. It's just not possible. The only exception that I can think of are those with decapitated fingers, hands, or arms. Another would be those with a genetic disorder involving super short arms. But those people don't really exist. It could be that they do, but that's beside the point.
> 
> ...


 he is only 2ft of the floor,if his legs were straight i can jump that high with out being a power lifter, bet he can't do the triple jump


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

jobo said:


> go on and then tell us some reasons why barbell training is the be all and END all of strengh training.
> 
> why is it better than say lifting logs or pushing cars or carrying heavy boxes



Lots of reasons. There are experts out there who'd do this better than me, but I'll give it a shot.

One... The exercises that you can do with a barbell and a power rack covers a lot of ground. These exercises, such as the squat and the power clean, will improve a lot of things. You can't be a shot putter if you can't squat 500 pounds at least. You can't be a sprinter if you have no explosive strength in your legs and posterior chain, which are improved by the power clean. You can't improve your vertical jump without a certain minimum strength level in the back squat. Plyometrics has its limits in that department. As a matter of fact, lots of strength training coaches out there *advice against *doing plyometrics until you become strong with the squat first. Barbell lifting ability transfers well to most sports.

Two... Barbell lifting incredibly "ergonomic". Do you know what is one of the biggest critiques against strongman training? Injury rate. The objects that require to be lifted and moved in a strongman event are so awkward that they force you to position your bodies in terribly injury-prone movements. An example is the lifting of massive, circular stones. You've probably seen them before. Strongman athletes are bound to round their backs lifting them from the ground. It's almost impossible not to. Barbell lifting is much safer.

Three... Barbell lifting is easily measurable. Compared to pure gymnastics training, barbell lifting has an easier method of progression. All you have to do is add weight. In gymnastics, you'd need to learn various techniques and tricks to increase resistance against the muscle.

And lastly, bragging rights. People love a guy who can bench press or squat an appreciable amount of weight. Paul Anderson, the strongest man to ever live, was dubbed by the Russians back in his heyday as a "Wonder of Nature." That's a damn great title to have as a human being. Humbling and gratifying.

I am sure there are other great reasons and examples as to why barbell training is the bee's knees.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

jobo said:


> he is only 2ft of the floor,if his legs were straight i can jump that high with out being a power lifter, bet he can't do the triple jump



It's closer to 3 feet from what I see. I'd say about 30 inches AT LEAST. AT LEAST.

And even if it's only 30 inches, the guy is over 300 pounds. To jump that high at 300 pounds is very very impressive. If he dieted down while maintaining strength and power, he'd jump much higher.


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Lots of reasons. There are experts out there who'd do this better than me, but I'll give it a shot.
> 
> One... The exercises that you can do with a barbell and a power rack covers a lot of ground. These exercises, such as the squat and the power clean, will improve a lot of things. You can't be a shot putter if you can't squat 500 pounds at least. You can't be a sprinter if you have no explosive strength in your legs and posterior chain, which are improved by the power clean. You can't improve your vertical jump without a certain minimum strength level in the back squat. Plyometrics has its limits in that department. As a matter of fact, lots of strength training coaches out there *advice against *doing plyometrics until you become strong with the squat first. Barbell lifting ability transfers well to most sports.
> 
> ...


no of that established that lifting bar bells is better at developing strength than moving other heavy objects including you own weight


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

jobo said:


> no of that established that lifting bar bells is better at developing strength than moving other heavy objects including you own weight



Please read it again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Of course. But you also have to mind about the idea of "carryovers". Here's what it is...
> 
> Often times, when you raise your squat strength, you also raise your deadlift strength. Does this happen ALL the time? No it doesn't. As a matter of fact, I learned from experience that you have to deadlift in order to improve your deadlift. Or at the very least, *you have to hit your posterior chain very hard to raise your deadlift. *But there is a limit to that. You will never find a human being with a 400-pound squat not be able to deadlift at least 250. It's just not possible. The only exception that I can think of are those with decapitated fingers, hands, or arms. Another would be those with a genetic disorder involving super short arms. But those people don't really exist. It could be that they do, but that's beside the point.
> 
> ...


The argument you make in that post is that strength training is important for MA. I don't know anyone who would argue it's unimportant (though there would be some argument about HOW important). That doesn't get to why barbells are the best strength training for sports.


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> It's closer to 3 feet from what I see. I'd say about 30 inches AT LEAST. AT LEAST.
> 
> And even if it's only 30 inches, the guy is over 300 pounds. To jump that high at 300 pounds is very very impressive. If he dieted down while maintaining strength and power, he'd jump much higher.


well I'm 200 b and can match him with out lifting bar bells, by practising jumping, if i lost 30 lbs i could jump higher, you supposed to be making a case for bar bells


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Lots of reasons. There are experts out there who'd do this better than me, but I'll give it a shot.
> 
> One... The exercises that you can do with a barbell and a power rack covers a lot of ground. These exercises, such as the squat and the power clean, will improve a lot of things. You can't be a shot putter if you can't squat 500 pounds at least. You can't be a sprinter if you have no explosive strength in your legs and posterior chain, which are improved by the power clean. You can't improve your vertical jump without a certain minimum strength level in the back squat. Plyometrics has its limits in that department. As a matter of fact, lots of strength training coaches out there *advice against *doing plyometrics until you become strong with the squat first. Barbell lifting ability transfers well to most sports.
> 
> ...


Some good points in there, and good reasons to like barbell training (except the last, which has nothing to do with efficacy, IMO). But they don't suggest why it's better than dumbbell training, cable training, kettlebell training, or some of the more traditional Eastern strength training (@Kung Fu Wang mentions these a lot).


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Please read it again.


I've read it a,couple of times, the only point you have is ergonomics, and lifting uneven weights is better for development of strengh out side the gym, as a general rule weight you find in the real world are uneven


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The argument you make in that post is that strength training is important for MA. I don't know anyone who would argue it's unimportant (though there would be some argument about HOW important). That doesn't get to why barbells are the best strength training for sports.



Second post below the post that you quoted.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Second post below the post that you quoted.


Second post above the one I just quoted.


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Second post below the post that you quoted.


it doesn't make any case for bar bells being superior to any other resistance lifting, 
let's break it down, why are bar bells better at leg development than pushing a car up hill


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Some good points in there, and good reasons to like barbell training (except the last, which has nothing to do with efficacy, IMO). But they don't suggest why it's better than dumbbell training, cable training, kettlebell training, or some of the more traditional Eastern strength training (@Kung Fu Wang mentions these a lot).



Let's compare it to kettlebells as an example.

Think of the squat. The squat is one of the most important strength training exercises known to modern man. With a barbell and a squat rack, you'd be able to do squats properly. With the kettlebell (or two), you can do goblet squats with it. *Goblet squats are inferior to the traditional barbell back squat for a number of reasons. *First, your upper-body strength will be a limiting factor. You can only hold on to a kettlebell that your upper-body can handle, which is very limited. Because of that, you won't be able to tax your legs all that much because the weight is not heavy enough.

Want more examples?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Barbell lifting incredibly "ergonomic".


Let's examine the following 3 different training equipment:

1. Barbell - train arm strength (even weigh).
2. Stone lock - train arm strength, wrist strength (weight on one end).
3. Square bag - train arm strength, wrist strength, finger strength (loose bag filling).

IMO, 3 > 2 > 1


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

jobo said:


> it doesn't make any case for bar bells being superior to any other resistance lifting,
> let's break it down, why are bar bells better at leg development than pushing a car up hill



Stop ganging up on me! Geez! You and GPSeymour...

But okay. Let's do it.

Let's start with the obvious. Name me ONE athlete with developed legs that never squatted? The best one that I can come up with is Robert Forstemann. See below.






And then I realized... Wait a minute... Robert Forstemann actually SQUATS!






There's even a video of him squatting 485 pounds for 20 reps.

Outside of Robert Forstemann and the world of iron sports (bodybuilding, powerlifting, weightlifting) *name me one athlete with appreciable leg development WITHOUT squatting. *To be fair, let's not include those who leg pressed. And let's also not include strongman competitors and shot putters. They count as barbell athletes.

You won't find one, ever. Nothing can replace progressive resistance training in the department of strength and muscular development. NOTHING. As Paul Anderson once said, *"If you don't bend those legs and do those squats, you'll never reach your potential."
*
In Kung Fu, you got Bruce Lee. A legendary stick figure. Yeah he's fast. Yeah he's skilled. But what about power? Nowadays, his "secret" one-inch punch technique can be replicated by bigger guys. I've seen an instructional video where a bodybuilder showed how it was done. And because HE did it and not Bruce "stick figure" Lee, the kid that got hit was sent flying all the way to the other side of the ring. I kid you not. I'll take the time to search the video if you want me to. I'm not sure I can find it, but believe me that it's there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Let's compare it to kettlebells as an example.
> 
> Think of the squat. The squat is one of the most important strength training exercises known to modern man. With a barbell and a squat rack, you'd be able to do squats properly. With the kettlebell (or two), you can do goblet squats with it. *Goblet squats are inferior to the traditional barbell back squat for a number of reasons. *First, your upper-body strength will be a limiting factor. You can only hold on to a kettlebell that your upper-body can handle, which is very limited. Because of that, you won't be able to tax your legs all that much because the weight is not heavy enough.
> 
> Want more examples?


That's a valid argument for the squat, and I suspect it applies to most of the alternatives, unless they also use a full bar (which can be done on cable machines) to remove the arm strength issue. But we can't just cherry-pick individual exercises. Your assertion was that barbells are superior in general, so I expect general concepts are more important than analyzing individual exercises. And we have to consider what's useful in the other direction. So, while (from my small knowledge) it's likely a barbell squat (or a nearly similar exercise) is among the best answers for squats, there's the issue of arm independence (each arm having to carry its full load), purposeful instability, etc. that dumbbells and kettlebells can introduce, but which I'm not sure are as prevalent in barbell exercises.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Stop ganging up on me! Geez! You and GPSeymour...
> 
> But okay. Let's do it.
> 
> ...


And that's another very good argument for barbell squats. 

Know that we're not ganging up (especially not me and Jobo - we are more likely to gang up on each other!...wait, that sounded wrong)...

Anyway, I'm genuinely curious about the topic. My view is that each type of strength exercise (barbell, kettlebell, dumbbell, cable, and some of the ad-hoc and traditional methods) has advantages. You asserted that barbell has overall superiority (my word, not yours), and I'm looking for why you assert that - and I'm not going in with the assumption that you're wrong, just that such a broad assertion needs strong backing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Outside of Robert Forstemann and the world of iron sports (bodybuilding, powerlifting, weightlifting) *name me one athlete with appreciable leg development WITHOUT squatting. *To be fair, let's not include those who leg pressed. And let's also not include strongman competitors and shot putters. They count as barbell athletes.


I'm curious why you leave out leg pressers and the others, if they didn't actually do barbell squats? I rarely did barbell squats (they always bothered my knees), but could always out-squat people who looked more muscular than me and who actually did squats (and pay for it in pain the next day). Part of that is simply genetics - I develop leg muscle much more easily than upper-body. But I did use leg presses (somehow, they bother my knees less), and was a hiker, runner, and soccer player, so my legs were used a lot.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Let's examine the following 3 different training equipment:
> 
> 1. Barbell - train arm strength (even weigh).
> 2. Stone lock - train arm strength, wrist strength (weight on one end).
> ...



Dear Kung Fu Wang,

      Do you honestly and truly and sincerely believe that those goofy-*** movements are superior to squatting and benching? They're goofier than a name that has the word "Wang" on it.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Stop ganging up on me! Geez! You and GPSeymour...
> 
> But okay. Let's do it.
> 
> ...


Please stop this is getting boring. Also you do know bruce was known to have incredible power and once injured a guys shoulder by punching a focus mitt he was holding. Just stop no one cares about power lifting in martial arts. Yeah strength training is important but it's very low down on the list.

Basically this is just because you know nothing about martial arts so are trying to compensate for that by coming on here acting like some genius who knows than anyone else about lifting weights


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's a valid argument for the squat, and I suspect it applies to most of the alternatives, unless they also use a full bar (which can be done on cable machines) to remove the arm strength issue. But we can't just cherry-pick individual exercises. Your assertion was that barbells are superior in general, so I expect general concepts are more important than analyzing individual exercises. And we have to consider what's useful in the other direction. So, while (from my small knowledge) it's likely a barbell squat (or a nearly similar exercise) is among the best answers for squats, there's the issue of arm independence (each arm having to carry its full load), purposeful instability, etc. that dumbbells and kettlebells can introduce, but which I'm not sure are as prevalent in barbell exercises.



The so-called "purposeful instability" is very overrated. In the culture of iron lifting, people make fun of "functional strength" enthusiasts. There is nothing more common than an expert in that arena making fun of trainees who are a little too fond of a bosu ball.

And if you really think about it, what are the odds of needing to balance yourself in the middle of an earthquake while carrying a puppy over your head? THAT is what "functional training" trains you for.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> The so-called "purposeful instability" is very overrated. In the culture of iron lifting, people make fun of "functional strength" enthusiasts. There is nothing more common than an expert in that arena making fun of trainees who are a little too fond of a bosu ball.
> 
> And if you really think about it, what are the odds of needing to balance yourself in the middle of an earthquake while carrying a puppy over your head? THAT is what "functional training" trains you for.


And yet, the rotator cuff is what took me off the mats for a while this year, not my inability to squat heavy loads.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm curious why you leave out leg pressers and the others, if they didn't actually do barbell squats? I rarely did barbell squats (they always bothered my knees), but could always out-squat people who looked more muscular than me and who actually did squats (and pay for it in pain the next day). Part of that is simply genetics - I develop leg muscle much more easily than upper-body. But I did use leg presses (somehow, they bother my knees less), and was a hiker, runner, and soccer player, so my legs were used a lot.



I exclude leg pressers from the "outsider" category because leg pressing is almost a lot like squatting. Definitely not as healthy as squatting, but they do tax the legs to an appreciable degree. And the motion on the legs is just like squatting.

I exclude strongman competitors because despite the fact that they don't lift an actual barbell in their events, they do train with one.

I exclude shot putters because they, like the bodybuilders and the weightlifters, squat a lot.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And yet, the rotator cuff is what took me off the mats for a while this year, not my inability to squat heavy loads.



What's your point? I don't get it.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> some genius



Thank you.


----------



## skribs (Nov 27, 2017)

This guy's either a troll or just absolutely full of himself.  I don't know why anyone is continuing to argue with him.

He's obviously correct because the smartest person on Earth (him) agrees with him(self), and with an appeal to authority like that, none of us are going to measure up to his omniscience.  If you do try to argue with him, he'll just refute your "facts" with insults about how dumb you are or accolades for himself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> What's your point? I don't get it.


The purposeful instability is what taxes stabilizing muscles like the rotator cuff muscles, to prevent injury. They have a place, and you've dismissed them out of hand, by the tone of your post. Stability of the joints is more important than lifting strength for preventing injury.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I exclude leg pressers from the "outsider" category because leg pressing is almost a lot like squatting. Definitely not as healthy as squatting, but they do tax the legs to an appreciable degree. And the motion on the legs is just like squatting.
> 
> I exclude strongman competitors because despite the fact that they don't lift an actual barbell in their events, they do train with one.
> 
> I exclude shot putters because they, like the bodybuilders and the weightlifters, squat a lot.


Okay, so some you're saying will all be squatters. Since you were asking about folks who don't squat, there's no need to exclude those. The press, though, is one of those exercises that presents a challenge to the assertion that barbells are universally superior. So, you can't just exclude the exercises that are similar, but don't use a barbell.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The purposeful instability is what taxes stabilizing muscles like the rotator cuff muscles, to prevent injury. They have a place, and you've dismissed them out of hand, by the tone of your post. Stability of the joints is more important than lifting strength for preventing injury.



I believe that the only real stability training that you'll ever need comes from basic standing barbell movements like squats and deadlifts. Those two exercises, for example, engages the entire core a lot. And it's not gimmicky. It works.

Other great examples are the Olympic lifts. Cleans and snatches.

No need to further destabilize the ground you're standing on. Unnecessary.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

skribs said:


> This guy's either a troll or just absolutely full of himself.  I don't know why anyone is continuing to argue with him.
> 
> He's obviously correct because the smartest person on Earth (him) agrees with him(self), and with an appeal to authority like that, none of us are going to measure up to his omniscience.  If you do try to argue with him, he'll just refute your "facts" with insults about how dumb you are or accolades for himself.



Bro, I'm not a troll. I just know better. There's a big difference between a troll and a brilliant mind.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I believe that the only real stability training that you'll ever need comes from basic standing barbell movements like squats and deadlifts. Those two exercises, for example, engages the entire core a lot. And it's not gimmicky. It works.
> 
> Other great examples are the Olympic lifts. Cleans and snatches.
> 
> No need to further destabilize the ground you're standing on. Unnecessary.


Nothing "gimmicky" about kettlebells, either. And it works.

See, you're starting to make this "you either agree that barbells are awesome, or you must be insulting them". That's a false dilemma. There are things barbells do better than other equipment. In some exercises they may (probably do) excel for certain purposes. But you cannot replicate the instability of a raised kettlebell with a barbell. You can't even replicate the instability of a single dumbbell with a barbell. And sometimes (not always) that instability is necessary. Rehabbing my rotator cuff needs progressive weight at high instability. I can get that a number of ways, and barbells are not the best (according to my PT).

As for destabilizing the ground you're standing on, there are some good reasons to do that. They have to do with balance development - something that's not as much a major factor in Olympic lifting as it is in many martial arts.

I was curious about your reasoning when I originally asked. Now I'm downright skeptical, because you seem to dismiss alternatives outright, without considering where they may fit into someone's fitness needs.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Bro, I'm not a troll. I just know better. There's a big difference between a troll and a brilliant mind.


Your arguments show a closed mind, focused on a solution without considering the variables. That's not brilliant. (Nor is calling yourself brilliant, BTW.)


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Stop ganging up on me! Geez! You and GPSeymour...
> 
> But okay. Let's do it.
> 
> ...


your making a case for squats, but not for bare bells, I'm stil waiting for you to tell us why squating with a bar hell is better than pushing a car up hill


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 27, 2017)

100% off topic, but...I would love to have @Kung Fu Wang  as a strength/conditioning trainer. I feel like I could learn so much doing his workouts and figuring out exactly why they work. It would also be cool to learn MA from him, if only to try out the rhino guard and half-side/half-square stance he talks about.


----------



## Juany118 (Nov 27, 2017)

First it depends on the school.  The school I attend, and our mother school, have weekly conditioning nights.  That said one night isn't enough.  The reason for this?  Because we pay our instructors to train us how to fight.  Due to this a good a instructor will encourage you to also do your own conditioning and the benefits of a healthy lifestyle.  They will especially point this out, in a polite way, after sparring because those who haven't been working out on their own will have gotten gassed and likely took some hits because of it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Dear Kung Fu Wang,
> 
> Do you honestly and truly and sincerely believe that those goofy-*** movements are superior to squatting and benching? They're goofier than a name that has the word "Wang" on it.


I'm not comparing those equipment training with squatting and benching. I'm only compare those 3 training equipment

- barbell
- stone lock,
- square throwing bag.

for the benefit of

- arm,
- wrist, and
- fingers.

Wang is my last name. There is noting "goofier" about it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Bro, I'm not a troll. I just know better. There's a big difference between a troll and a brilliant mind.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Nothing "gimmicky" about kettlebells, either. And it works.
> 
> See, you're starting to make this "you either agree that barbells are awesome, or you must be insulting them". That's a false dilemma. There are things barbells do better than other equipment. In some exercises they may (probably do) excel for certain purposes. But you cannot replicate the instability of a raised kettlebell with a barbell. You can't even replicate the instability of a single dumbbell with a barbell. And sometimes (not always) that instability is necessary. Rehabbing my rotator cuff needs progressive weight at high instability. I can get that a number of ways, and barbells are not the best (according to my PT).
> 
> ...



I LOVE kettlebells. I love them more than dumbbells. I wanted you to know that. With a pair of 20-pound kettlebells, I can give myself a good full-body workout. I've done it before. Yes, I like barbells better, but kettlebells come in second.

You said: _As for destabilizing the ground you're standing on, there are some good reasons to do that. They have to do with balance development - something that's not as much a major factor in Olympic lifting as it is in many martial arts.
_
Absolutely wrong. You just can't perform proper Olympic-style lifting if you have no bodily spatial awareness. Heck, a mere deadlift, as simple as it is, requires a good sense of balance. I've seen many of my trainees lose their balance with a squat. And I myself have lost balance with a deadlift. Learning balancing is crucial to weightlifting.

Also, I dismiss alternatives outright because said alternatives are **** compared to barbell lifting.

Squat is love. Squat is life.

*To give proof of how important balance is in weightlifting, I dare you to perform a proper (PROPER) overhead squat. Do that, and then look me in the eye and tell me that balance is not important in weightlifting.*


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> First it depends on the school.  The school I attend, and our mother school, have weekly conditioning nights.  That said one night isn't enough.  The reason for this?  Because we pay our instructors to train us how to fight.  Due to this a good a instructor will encourage you to also do your own conditioning and the benefits of a healthy lifestyle.  They will especially point this out, in a polite way, after sparring because those who haven't been working out on their own will have gotten gassed and likely took some hits because of it.



Cool. Thanks for your input.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm not comparing those equipment training with squatting and benching. I'm only compare those 3 training equipment
> 
> - barbell
> - stone lock,
> ...



That makes better sense. Thanks.

That said, I believe arms and wrists can be better trained with traditional weight equipment. Barbells and dumbbells, to be precise. You got a lot of varieties. Reverse curls, wrist curls, hammers curls, whatever.

Sorry about my disrespect earlier. I couldn't help it. It won't happen again. Sorry.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I LOVE kettlebells. I love them more than dumbbells. I wanted you to know that. With a pair of 20-pound kettlebells, I can give myself a good full-body workout. I've done it before. Yes, I like barbells better, but kettlebells come in second.


That isn't clear in the tone of your prior posts, so thanks for clarifying.



> Absolutely wrong. You just can't perform proper Olympic-style lifting if you have no bodily spatial awareness. Heck, a mere deadlift, as simple as it is, requires a good sense of balance. I've seen many of my trainees lose their balance with a squat. And I myself have lost balance with a deadlift. Learning balancing is crucial to weightlifting.


You mistake my point and take a very strong stance against the wrong point. I didn't say balance and proprioception was unimportant in lifting. I said it's more important in some martial arts. When two people are trying to throw each other, there's dynamic stress on the balancing muscles of both. When kicking, especially on softer or uneven surfaces, balance becomes more difficult.



> Also, I dismiss alternatives outright because said alternatives are **** compared to barbell lifting.


Absolutely wrong.



> Squat is love. Squat is life.


Squat is good for what it's good for. Nothing more and nothing less.

*



			To give proof of how important balance is in weightlifting, I dare you to perform a proper (PROPER) overhead squat. Do that, and then look me in the eye and tell me that balance is not important in weightlifting.
		
Click to expand...

*I can't do a proper squat overhead or otherwise at present. My knees are too crappy for a fully proper squat. However, that's irrelevant, since I never said balance was unimportant in weightlifting.

You don't seem capable of discussing in a give-and-take of information, so I'm not sure I can be of any more help to you.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Lots of reasons. There are experts out there who'd do this better than me, but I'll give it a shot.
> 
> One... The exercises that you can do with a barbell and a power rack covers a lot of ground. These exercises, such as the squat and the power clean, will improve a lot of things. You can't be a shot putter if you can't squat 500 pounds at least. You can't be a sprinter if you have no explosive strength in your legs and posterior chain, which are improved by the power clean. You can't improve your vertical jump without a certain minimum strength level in the back squat. Plyometrics has its limits in that department. As a matter of fact, lots of strength training coaches out there *advice against *doing plyometrics until you become strong with the squat first. Barbell lifting ability transfers well to most sports.
> 
> ...



I could go point by point here... but instead, I'll sum it up simply:  Who says?  Seriously.... who's talking.  You're appealing to all sorts of unnamed authorities, stating opinions as facts, and generally not offering any support for your opinions.

Few if any of us here would suggest that there's no place for strength training in martial arts.  But it's not the be-all-and-end-all of improving martial arts training either.  Nor are most of suggesting that there aren't flaws and failings in a lot of the "traditional" (in quotes because a lot of them aren't as traditional as many would have you believe -- or only showed up after being seen in a Chinese movie) training methods.  There's certainly room for looking at better, more modern methods of training and conditioning -- but that doesn't mean the older methods are all garbage, either.  Nor does it mean that the only sort of training to do should be moving iron, either.  There's room for methods from various athletic disciplines.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You don't seem capable of discussing in a give-and-take of information, so I'm not sure I can be of any more help to you.



Please don't think that.

I think the problem is that I stick to dogma. But I want you to know that my adherence to these dogma of mine are borne from an honest passion for physical development. For example, I firmly believe that Olympic weightlifting is, as one of her ambassadors once said, *the king of sports. *That's relative. I know that. But there is basis to think that it's an absolute truth. It's a great sport. There is a strong culture behind it, much like in martial arts.

And in this subculture that I call "The Iron Game", our "cult", if you wanna call it that, adhere to some very fundamental beliefs that inevitably clash with other beliefs from other cultures/subcultures.

Martial arts is the same thing. People often deny that they don't have a religion, but that's false. Everyone in the world has their own maxims and beliefs, which can be defined as their own "religion". I'm one of them. I'm one of you. It's just that I'm willing to go to the ends of the world to impose my own truth.

It's often unwise to pick a side in any conflict. It's often better to be neutral because it's safer and more comfortable. But I don't roll that way. lol


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Let's compare it to kettlebells as an example.
> 
> Think of the squat. The squat is one of the most important strength training exercises known to modern man. With a barbell and a squat rack, you'd be able to do squats properly. With the kettlebell (or two), you can do goblet squats with it. *Goblet squats are inferior to the traditional barbell back squat for a number of reasons. *First, your upper-body strength will be a limiting factor. You can only hold on to a kettlebell that your upper-body can handle, which is very limited. Because of that, you won't be able to tax your legs all that much because the weight is not heavy enough.
> 
> Want more examples?


Goblet squats aren't inferior to back squats, or front squats, or the V-Squat machine, or...  whatever.  They're different.  A good program will combine different exercise for exactly that reason.  You can work the muscle along different angles, in different positions.  A routine that focuses too much on any one exercise will lead to problems and imbalances.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> In Kung Fu, you got Bruce Lee. A legendary stick figure. Yeah he's fast. Yeah he's skilled. But what about power? Nowadays, his "secret" one-inch punch technique can be replicated by bigger guys. I've seen an instructional video where a bodybuilder showed how it was done. And because HE did it and not Bruce "stick figure" Lee, the kid that got hit was sent flying all the way to the other side of the ring. I kid you not. I'll take the time to search the video if you want me to. I'm not sure I can find it, but believe me that it's there.



Maybe you somehow missed it...

But Bruce Lee?  He was kind of known for his physical development, including weight training...  One quick article HERE.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> The so-called "purposeful instability" is very overrated. In the culture of iron lifting, people make fun of "functional strength" enthusiasts. There is nothing more common than an expert in that arena making fun of trainees who are a little too fond of a bosu ball.
> 
> And if you really think about it, what are the odds of needing to balance yourself in the middle of an earthquake while carrying a puppy over your head? THAT is what "functional training" trains you for.


Um... maybe in the gyms you frequent.  Most of the guys I work out with and around -- including some nationally known lifters and bodybuilders and trainers -- recognize that different types of training are appropriate for different goals.  They laugh at some of the crazy silly stuff people do, whether that's lousy form, using equipment wrong, or... hell, that list gets long -- but not at "functional training" done properly.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Bro, I'm not a troll. I just know better. There's a big difference between a troll and a brilliant mind.


Again -- you're making a claim.  SUPPORT IT.  What are YOUR credentials.  Why should we believe YOU know more than anyone else?


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> Goblet squats aren't inferior to back squats, or front squats, or the V-Squat machine, or...  whatever.  They're different.  A good program will combine different exercise for exactly that reason.  You can work the muscle along different angles, in different positions.  A routine that focuses too much on any one exercise will lead to problems and imbalances.



Thank you for this! This is good thinking and good observation on your part. Thanks!

I agree. Training programs, whether training for sports or bodybuilding or martial arts, must be balanced and well-rounded. This I definitely agree with.

What I DON'T agree with is your statement: _A routine that focuses too much on any one exercise will lead to problems and imbalances.
_
There is truth to this. But at the end of the day, *there really is no such thing as a completely balanced training program. The exceptions to this rule are the ones that don't work. *There really is no such thing as a jack of all trades. Everyone has their physical flaws. You can't have an IFBB competitor also be a sprinter, and no successful sprinter in the world has enough muscle mass to reach the elite in powerlifting.

Another thing... In bodybuilding, there are what you call "specialization programs", or so I dubbed. The first time I read about this type of training, I thought to my self, "Why specialize if you can just simultaneously improve everything?" And then after months of intense study and discovery, I found out an answer to my question, which is this... *Most people (95%), regardless of what sport they compete it, will always always always have a weakness or two. And these people must prioritize their weaknesses so they'd be stronger as a whole. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link. *Very true indeed... Paul Anderson's training revolved around the squat. And because of that, he became a "Wonder of Nature", as Russians called him. Old-time Bulgarian weightlifters did very few (less than six) different exercises, and they thrived. And lastly, allow me to quote Baltasar Gracian...

_Prize intensity more than extensity. Perfection resides in quality, not quantity. Extent alone never rises above mediocrity, and it is the misfortune of men with wide general interests that while they would like to have their finger in every pie, they have one in none. Intensity gives eminence, and rises to the heroic in matters sublime.

~Baltasar Gracian (1601-1658)_


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> Maybe you somehow missed it...
> 
> But Bruce Lee?  He was kind of known for his physical development, including weight training...  One quick article HERE.



And this proves once again that lifting weights is superior.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> Um... maybe in the gyms you frequent.  Most of the guys I work out with and around -- including some nationally known lifters and bodybuilders and trainers -- recognize that different types of training are appropriate for different goals.  They laugh at some of the crazy silly stuff people do, whether that's lousy form, using equipment wrong, or... hell, that list gets long -- but not at "functional training" done properly.



Can you please define to me what you mean by functional training?

"Functional training" has certain connotations to it that makes it confusing. For example, bicep curls... They were never considered to be functional training until Randy Couture spoke of how important they are in wrestling. And if you really wanna get technical about it, basic deadlifts are, in fact, a form of "functional training" because of how it encompasses so many important day-to-day activities like bending over to grab something or pulling on weeds.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> Again -- you're making a claim.  SUPPORT IT.  What are YOUR credentials.  Why should we believe YOU know more than anyone else?



I already mentioned my credentials in some previous posts. But I'll go and mention them again now...

1. Competitive powerlifter in my teens. 455-pound deadlift, 405-pound "power" squat, and 275-pound bench press. All at age 17.

2. Last year, I took my squat up from 335 pounds to 405 pounds *in two months. *Most people would take them at least 6 months to do that. Also, this is a different kind of squat. Olympic-style, with a pause at the bottom, as opposed to powerlifting-style as I did as a teen.

3. I've been in 13 total street fights from elementary school to my early twenties.

4. Boxed for about two months. Beat up a kid a year older than me. I was 14 years old and he was 15, and he was training in boxing for a year. But I'll be fair here... I hit the back of his head, which is a no-no.

5. I once wrote an article to a vertical jumping website that got posted for a week. To be fair, it was taken down because I failed to cite my sources. However, it was posted. That says something.

And most importantly...

6. It's my destiny to become awesome.


----------



## skribs (Nov 27, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I already mentioned my credentials in some previous posts. But I'll go and mention them again now...
> 
> 1. Competitive powerlifter in my teens. 455-pound deadlift, 405-pound "power" squat, and 275-pound bench press. All at age 17.
> 
> ...



1 and 2 only prove you were good at lifting, not that you are qualified to know the science of lifting and pass it on to others, nor that you are qualified to know that the lifts you are doing are best for someone else.

3 is not a credential I'd be proud of.  At best it suggests you have poor awareness of bad situations, and at worst it suggests you are the one starting fights.

4 you "beat up a kid" by breaking the rules, doesn't really sound good from any angle.

5 You wrote an article that made it to a website?  Um...okay.  I've written several that have been stickied on various forums (not for weight lifting though).  I don't think this qualifies you as an expert, it just means you had a decent article by that website's standards.

6. Ah, yes, this absolutely holds up.

Your list of reasons is like someone saying that because they were shift supervisor at a local grocery store for 2 months, that they should be CEO of a medium-sized shipping company.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 27, 2017)

skribs said:


> 1 and 2 only prove you were good at lifting, not that you are qualified to know the science of lifting and pass it on to others, nor that you are qualified to know that the lifts you are doing are best for someone else.
> 
> 3 is not a credential I'd be proud of.  At best it suggests you have poor awareness of bad situations, and at worst it suggests you are the one starting fights.
> 
> ...



I forgot one other thing... I've actually trained others in volleyball and lifting with great success. The friends and family that I trained felt like I knew what I was doing. I have charisma. But anyway...

Hey, at least I got something... They're not good credentials but they're credentials nonetheless. Much better and more ethical than bragging about things that never were.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Bro, I'm not a troll. I just know better. There's a big difference between a troll and a brilliant mind.


Lol well you're definently not the second one....maybe just extremely arrogant


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> It's just that I'm willing to go to the ends of the world to impose my own truth.


This is where you and I will clash. Imposing your truth won’t work with, on, or near me. I won’t buy it. In fact, the harder you push, the less I’m interested. 

I understand passion. I even understand non-religious evangelism - I’m pretty evangelical about good management and leadership. But when your passion leads you to mock alternatives simply because they aren’t your preferred approach, your mind is closed, and will close most it encounters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> And this proves once again that lifting weights is superior.


Now your argument has shifted to lifting weights, rather than barbells.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 28, 2017)

This entire thread feels like a Dunning-Kruger case study.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This is where you and I will clash. Imposing your truth won’t work with, on, or near me. I won’t buy it. In fact, the harder you push, the less I’m interested.
> 
> I understand passion. I even understand non-religious evangelism - I’m pretty evangelical about good management and leadership. But when your passion leads you to mock alternatives simply because they aren’t your preferred approach, your mind is closed, and will close most it encounters.



I see the concept of having a closed mind to be a *virtue. *Such a mind is, the way I see it, incorruptible.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Now your argument has shifted to lifting weights, rather than barbells.



Lifting barbells is the same as lifting weights. Barbells are weights.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This entire thread feels like a Dunning-Kruger case study.



No it's not. My brilliance is self-evident *and very justified. *The Dunning-Kruger effect applies to delusional people only.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Lifting barbells is the same as lifting weights. Barbells are weights.


So are kettlebells, the plates on Nautilus machines, large rocks, and dumbbells.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So are kettlebells, the plates on Nautilus machines, large rocks, and dumbbells.



Yes, of course, but barbells are at the top of the food chain. They're the tiger of the jungle and the lion of the safari.

Other weight implements have their place. It's just that barbell training should be the staple in most strength training programs.

And now... I'd like to shift this discussion to *endurance training. *Let's talk about that... This is a barbell's weakness to an extent. What is your opinion about that? Kettlebells are great conditioning tools and are more ergonomic than barbells.

The high-repetition power cleans that many Crossfitters do is a terrible idea. It's asking for an injury. High-rep squats, yes. But not high-rep cleans. I think this is where other weight equipments actually become better than a barbell. Kettlebell swings and goblet squats are great conditioning tools. There's a sport built around kettlebells called Girevoy. It involves one-arm snatching a heavy kettlebell for as many times as you can...

When it comes to endurance training, I'm not sure which one is better. Running vs kettlebells...


----------



## frank raud (Nov 28, 2017)

If you know better than us, why would our opinions matter?


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

frank raud said:


> If you know better than us, why would our opinions matter?



I never said I knew better. I simply stated that I'm brilliant, which is true.

I never said that others were not as brilliant as I am. Everyone is brilliant in their own way.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I never said I knew better. I simply stated that I'm brilliant, which is true.
> 
> I never said that others were not as brilliant as I am. Everyone is brilliant in their own way.


Okay you are so a troll or just a total douche


----------



## frank raud (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I never said I knew better. I simply stated that I'm brilliant, which is true.
> 
> I never said that others were not as brilliant as I am. Everyone is brilliant in their own way.


First page post 19   I understand that this question of mine has certain implications within it. It is this one: I think I know better than you...


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Okay you are so a troll or just a total douche



I am not a troll and I'm not a douche.

There's a lot of things I can say about myself. The one thing that I will say most proudly though, is this...

I am destined for greatness. One day everybody will look back to the 21st century and say, "Zombocalypse really made a difference."

If you're willing to risk it, I can coach you online. I'll help you enhance your martial arts abilities through strength training. I have experience coaching others. I'll take your striking power and grappling power to new heights. All I ask for is faith in me and an open mind. I'm sure I can teach you things you haven't learned yet.

In the same way, you can teach new things to me too.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> No it's not. My brilliance is self-evident *and very justified. *The Dunning-Kruger effect applies to delusional people only.


please stop ...your making my drinks come out my nose.
you have no credentials. 
*"i pick things up and put them down"*
is not a credential.

i can assume you didnt even bother looking at the links i posted.  you may have noticed one of the people in the links has a...._*DR.  *_in front of their name..., being a DR. in kinesiology and a professional trainer to the top athletes in the world.....now that is a credential.

like i said before your just arguing and wasting time.  get off the PC and go get your self an actual education on this subject. go actually do something of value.  then come back and re read everything you have written.  it may be enlightening.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

frank raud said:


> First page post 19   I understand that this question of mine has certain implications within it. It is this one: I think I know better than you...



No no no. I WASN'T saying that I did. I was just saying that behind my question is an assumption that I think I know better. I never directly said that I knew better. Rather, it was cleverly disguised by my very own brilliance and sharp wit.

BIG difference.


----------



## jobo (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Yes, of course, but barbells are at the top of the food chain. They're the tiger of the jungle and the lion of the safari.
> 
> Other weight implements have their place. It's just that barbell training should be the staple in most strength training programs.
> 
> ...



well no, seems as your in love. With bar bells, just put less weight on and lift it 50,100, 500 times, that will sort you endurance out,

there isn't much that is better than running for cardio, biking and rowing come close


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 28, 2017)

*Admin's Note:*

Please keep it civil and on-topic.  Violators will be given warning points, and you're not going to like what happens when you accumulate too many of them.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I am not a troll and I'm not a douche.
> 
> There's a lot of things I can say about myself. The one thing that I will say most proudly though, is this...
> 
> ...


Lol like I'd take advice from some guy online who loves himself way to much


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> well no, seems as your in love. With bar bells, just put less weight on and lift it 50,100, 500 times, that will sort you endurance out,
> 
> there isn't much that is better than running for cardio, biking and rowing come close



Honestly, I prefer rowing over running. Running is not really healthy for the knees, believe it or not. Long-distance running, that is. It's a "ballistic" movement that hits your joints worse than heavy squats.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Lol like I'd take advice from some guy online who loves himself way to much



I insist that you accept me as a coach. It'll benefit the both of us. It'll enhance my leadership abilities and you'll enhance your physical prowess.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> If you're willing to risk it, I can coach you online. I'll help you enhance your martial arts abilities through strength training. I have experience coaching others. I'll take your striking power and grappling power to new heights. All I ask for is faith in me and an open mind. I'm sure I can teach you things you haven't learned yet.


Without actual, tangible credentials, no one is going to put faith in you.  Or at least no one in their right mind will.  Why do people put faith into what Mike Boyle, Mike Clark, Juan Carlos Santana, et al say? Because they have an actual scientific education from an actual accredited and respected university, have passed certification/board exams, have worked under and alongside high level people within their field, and have proven the results of the work they’ve replicated and the things they’ve developed on their own.  And they’ve proven time and time again beyond “I went from lifting X lbs to Y lbs in Z weeks” “all my friends say I’m great” and “I’m destined for greatness.”

As far as any one keeping an open mind about what you’ll teach them, didn’t you say a closed mind is a “virtue” and “incorruptible?”

You’re on another level, I guess.  Everyone should keep an open mind about training EXCEPT you.  

Got it.  Where do I sign up, Mr. Koresh?


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I insist that you accept me as a coach. It'll benefit the both of us. It'll enhance my leadership abilities and you'll enhance your physical prowess.


You're boring


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Without actual, tangible credentials, no one is going to put faith in you.  Or at least no one in their right mind will.  Why do people put faith into what Mike Boyle, Mike Clark, Juan Carlos Santana, et al say? Because they have an actual scientific education from an actual accredited and respected university, have passed certification/board exams, have worked under and alongside high level people within their field, and have proven the results of the work they’ve replicated and the things they’ve developed on their own.  And they’ve proven time and time again beyond “I went from lifting X lbs to Y lbs in Z weeks” “all my friends say I’m great” and “I’m destined for greatness.”
> 
> As far as any one keeping an open mind about what you’ll teach them, didn’t you say a closed mind is a “virtue” and “incorruptible?”
> 
> ...





_Do unto others as you would have them do unto you _was what Jesus said. I can't be open-minded unless you people would be open-minded to me first. It's the Golden Rule that is taught in four major religions. They call it "reciprocal respect."


----------



## jobo (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Honestly, I prefer rowing over running. Running is not really healthy for the knees, believe it or not. Long-distance running, that is. It's a "ballistic" movement that hits your joints worse than heavy squats.


rowing wears the shoulders out though, so its pick you poison, 
I'm weary of getting into a serious discussion with you as it seems you are not actually serious? 

but Il try and then see if its worth doing.

you want to build your cardio base for what you expect to have to do. Ticking along at 40 % of mhr for 10 miles is of limited use to a fighter, where what you are likely to need is say five minutes of near flat out cardio, so five minute sprints are more useful to you than five miles. Of course. You can do do five. Miles with a series of sprints built in and get the best of both. or a miles in 200 meter sprints is good with a 100 metres of jogging inbetween


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 28, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> Again -- you're making a claim.  SUPPORT IT.  What are YOUR credentials.  Why should we believe YOU know more than anyone else?



*Your credentials are what*?  Oh you lift weight's.  Big deal, no one here is impressed!



Zombocalypse said:


> I already mentioned my credentials in some previous posts. But I'll go and mention them again now...
> 
> 1. Competitive powerlifter in my teens. 455-pound deadlift, 405-pound "power" squat, and 275-pound bench press. All at age 17.
> 
> ...



*No credentials here.* 



gpseymour said:


> This entire thread feels like a Dunning-Kruger case study.



*Yes it does. 
*
Frankly Zombacolypse your just a dude who lifts a bit.  Not a coach, not really elite, not very informed and so on.  That is why you are getting push back here.  As mentioned by several people here many martial practitioner's and mma coaches actually understand weight training and have actual certifications.  Yet, per your own admission you watched some TV and videos on the internet and your a garage type power lifter and you expect us to take your opinion seriously?  If you want to be taken seriously get some credentials, certifications, college degree, etc.  *Then people might actually take what you say with some credibility*.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Your credentials are what*?  Oh you lift weight's.  Big deal, no one here is impressed!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Formal education is not an option for me. I neither have the money nor the willingness to take out a loan.

But there is one achievable goal that I can aim to: To be the strongest 70-year old man in history. I've already lost the opportunity to exploit the power of youth. I can't be in the Olympics. Not a chance. But to be a strong and healthy 70-year old? I can do that. I know how...

If this forum is still active after my 70th birthday, I'll share what I've learned over the years...

Doug Hepburn, the grandfather of modern powerlifting, challenged the world to exceed his old-man strength. One of his feats is a 400-pound squat at age 70. I can see myself achieving that at that age.

Just wait and see...


----------



## jobo (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Formal education is not an option for me. I neither have the money nor the willingness to take out a loan.
> 
> But there is one achievable goal that I can aim to: To be the strongest 70-year old man in history. I've already lost the opportunity to exploit the power of youth. I can't be in the Olympics. Not a chance. But to be a strong and healthy 70-year old? I can do that. I know how...
> 
> ...


the aging ng process has a much to do with genetics as life style, my friends  cant under stand how i a chain smoking junk food eating 58 year old can be in far better physical condition than them. With there diet of brown rice and salad 

your just as likely to need one of they motorised buggies  to get to the shop as you are to be lifting 400 lbs, particularly if you screw you joints up lifting big now


----------



## DanT (Nov 28, 2017)

Because 90% of a a martial artists physical training come from doing Martial Arts:

-Sparring
-Forms
-Two Man Drills
-Bag Work
-Pad Work
-Rolling

And not lifting weights. The remaining 10% is usually dedicated mostly to skipping and calesthenics, both to build endurance. 

Most martial artists aim to be light on their feet (think Bruce Lee not Rocky). To do so usually requires you to maintain a body fat percentage under 15%. For most people, their goals are usually to be lean and cut. Since Martial Arts tends to be mostly a cardio and muscular endurance workout, the resultant physique from extremely vigorous training is usually "lean and athletic" rather than "bulky".


----------



## DanT (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> It does, _to a very very VERY limited extent.
> _
> To push your punching power or kicking power to new heights, you have to get stronger first before anything else. Strength is the foundation of speed. You won't be able to lift a light weight fast if you're not strong enough to even merely lift it at all.
> 
> ...


Timing and Accuracy are more important than Speed and Power.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

DanT said:


> Timing and Accuracy are more important than Speed and Power.



A ten-year old kid with perfect timing and accuracy can never hope to damage a full-grown truck driver. Size and power is a game changer.

Think of it this way... You take Bruce Lee and pit him against a mere zebra. A ZEBRA. Not a lion, not a tiger, not a polar bear, a ZEBRA. He will lose. Trust me.

The reason why wild animals can kick our butts in a fight is because of strength, size, and durability. NOT timing and accuracy. If the Incredible Hulk existed for real in our world, he'd be the undisputed champion in every combat sport out there.

Since a lot of the people here taint my credentials, let me go ahead and paraphrase what Marc Macyoung once said, a true expert... _"Size doesn't matter? Sorry to disappoint you kid, but it does. Strength and size makes a difference in a fight. Bigger guys win."
_
"Almost all fights are won by those who can eat the most."

~Ando, from Baki the Grappler.

Here's my question to those who disagree with me. Pit Nick Diaz against Brock Lesnar. Who will win?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> A ten-year old kid with perfect timing and accuracy can never hope to damage a full-grown truck driver. Size and power is a game changer.
> 
> Think of it this way... You take Bruce Lee and pit him against a mere zebra. A ZEBRA. Not a lion, not a tiger, not a polar bear, a ZEBRA. He will lose. Trust me.
> 
> ...


Dude, you've now deteriorated into quoting a manga...


----------



## jobo (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> A ten-year old kid with perfect timing and accuracy can never hope to damage a full-grown truck driver. Size and power is a game changer.
> 
> Think of it this way... You take Bruce Lee and pit him against a mere zebra. A ZEBRA. Not a lion, not a tiger, not a polar bear, a ZEBRA. He will lose. Trust me.
> 
> ...


zebra, ?????? the forum has hit a new low in silly comparisons, ok, you find that Bruce lee would most certainly lose tp a pit bull that weighs less than a third of his body weight, and most definitely to a,scorpion if it sneak d up on him


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Dude, you've now deteriorated into quoting a manga...



lmao!!!


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 28, 2017)

Having gotten trapped in a very boring circumstance with no option to extricate myself, and thinking anything was better than the boredom, I read the rest of this thread.  

Wow, I think you guys being played!  Just my opinion, but I would give the OP credit for expertise in one thing: being able to lead people on to keep them posting long after there was any apparent worthwhile reason to continue to do so.  IMHO he's really good at that.

WOW!


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 28, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Having gotten trapped in a very boring circumstance with no option to extricate myself, and thinking anything was better than the boredom, I read the rest of this thread.
> 
> Wow, I think you guys being played!  Just my opinion, but I would give the OP credit for expertise in one thing: being able to lead people on to keep them posting long after there was any apparent worthwhile reason to continue to do so.  IMHO he's really good at that.
> 
> WOW!


It happens all the time here. Once a thread passes 3 pages, I leave it alone unless I'm bored.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 28, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> It happens all the time here. Once a thread passes 3 pages, I leave it alone unless I'm bored.



Agreed.  I just thought that he was truly a little better than most who try that.  Eight pages?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> large rocks, ...


Before my last tournament, I moved a huge rock daily for 3 months. It was a great work out. Today, that rock is still sitting next to my drive way. Whenever I look at it, I hate it. It's just too much weight for me. Someone said that 70% of your body weight should be the right amount of weight to train.

IMO, instead of just lift up and put down a huge rock, it's better to move a less weight rock so you can have some fun.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 28, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Having gotten trapped in a very boring circumstance with no option to extricate myself, and thinking anything was better than the boredom, I read the rest of this thread.
> 
> Wow, I think you guys being played!  Just my opinion, but I would give the OP credit for expertise in one thing: being able to lead people on to keep them posting long after there was any apparent worthwhile reason to continue to do so.  IMHO he's really good at that.
> 
> WOW!


In fairness, that's pretty easy with me.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> What do you mean? I don't understand your question. But I can tell you a lot of reasons why barbell lifting is in fact the end all and be all of strength training. I would argue that to the ends of the world. *There is no better strength training tool out there than barbell lifting. *Maybe for endurance it's a different story. But STRENGTH? It's blasphemy to say it isn't.




Here you go. serious answer.


----------



## skribs (Nov 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> In fairness, that's pretty easy with me.



Good to know for whenever I get bored at work.

I think OP lied when he said "I'm not a troll."


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 28, 2017)

DanT said:


> Because 90% of a a martial artists physical training come from doing Martial Arts.


Most of the time, a MA guy will use a special training equipment to enhance his particular MA skill.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most of the time, a MA guy will use a special training equipment to enhance his particular MA skill.



Such as bench pressing for punching power.


----------



## Finlay (Nov 28, 2017)

Hello

The question of strength training in the martial arts is quite an old one.

For myself I enjoy powerlifting movements but my main focus is martial arts

For many it comes down to training time. How much time are you willing to take away from skill training and mat time to devote to learning how to lift and then developing that strength to a high level.

For most I would think it is not that much, most if the time I would think lifting would come second.

Strength of course makes a difference and we don' have to go to examples of punching 10 year Olds or wildlife to make that point.

Strength also isn' the holy grail you need to balance it with skill and a lot of other attributes.

As for the exercises, even the top strength and conditionIng coaches don't really agree with each other, if you listen to Charles Poliquin,  Ian king, Dan John and others you would get different ideas.

Also saying that martial artists don' know much about strength and conditioning may very well be true. However I think you could probably say the same for a lot of different sports and past times. I was listening to a interview with someone talking about their college football experiece. Apparently coaching involved yelling at the players to catch the ball with a few expletives and insults thrown in.


----------



## Finlay (Nov 28, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> . If the Incredible Hulk existed for real in our world, he'd be the undisputed champion in every combat sport out there.




OK slow morning at work.........

*Taekwondo*

Hulk Smash – is disqualified for excessive contact

*Kendo*

Disqualified for refusing to use ‘puny shinai’

*Judo*

Hulk wins by full ippon, is later disqualified for also performing full ippon on the referee, the opponent’s coach, his own coach, and members of the crowd
*
Karate*

Hulk sees his opponent is Chuck Norris and runs away

*Taiji push hands*

Form practice before hand relaxes the Hulk and he returned to being Dr. Banner. He then loses to a 70 year old woman

*UFC*

Loses by decision to The Flash


I know the last one is Marvel/DC crossover. but it was either The Flash or a Zebra with a killer kick


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

Finlay said:


> Hello
> 
> The question of strength training in the martial arts is quite an old one.
> 
> ...



Thank you for posting in my thread. I enjoyed reading what you posted.

As far as what you mentioned about how top strength coaches differ in their views, it is also fair to say that there are basic and fundamental maxims that guys like Dan John and Poliquin agree on, such as...

You must squat.

You must do multi-jointed, complex exercises like the squat and the deadlift.

You must vary your training.

You must strive to get stronger in the basic lifts, such as the power clean and the squat.

You must be mindful of what and how much you eat.

And so on and so forth.

And it is those maxims that we all must strive to follow. In the end, it is only confusing if you don't know any better. Information nowadays is incredibly easy to obtain. You can even go to college in your own home.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 28, 2017)

Finlay said:


> OK slow morning at work.........
> 
> *Taekwondo*
> 
> ...



Brilliant! Absolutely hilarious.


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2017)

Finlay said:


> Hello
> 
> The question of strength training in the martial arts is quite an old one.
> 
> ...


well yes, i don't disagree with your post or the op at a fundamental level, rather his,dogma that strengh and particularly bar bells are the only way to go.

my thoughts are,, that if you can go into a fight/ being attacked or what ever being the strongest or at least on a level playing field, that makes anything that comes after in terms of fighting skills a hugh bonus to you. If you are substantially deficiency strengh wise then its going to be nip and tuck if your skill are enough to turn that disadvantage round. Maybe maybe not?? dependent on a whole hoist of unknown variables?

as its a fundamental element , neglecting it is fool hardy and you need to be extremely confident in your skills to be confident. That you will win against a random  opponent of unknown strengh and skill. 

you can't of course be the strongest out there, but you can be the strongest you can reasonably be with out dedicating your whole training just to strengh.

someone whoa opinions on such matters i respect, told me, that if you can do 40 press up, 15 pull ups and run a mile in 8 mins, you will be very unlucky to meet someone who can beat you in a pushing and pulling match, even if they are notably bigger/ stronger, you are likely to out last them. It's all a % game


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> well yes, i don't disagree with your post or the op at a fundamental level, rather his,dogma that strengh and particularly bar bells are the only way to go.
> 
> my thoughts are,, that if you can go into a fight/ being attacked or what ever being the strongest or at least on a level playing field, that makes anything that comes after in terms of fighting skills a hugh bonus to you. If you are substantially deficiency strengh wise then its going to be nip and tuck if your skill are enough to turn that disadvantage round. Maybe maybe not?? dependent on a whole hoist of unknown variables?
> 
> ...


I agree with the principles, though you and I might quibble over some of the fine points. I think it's a po-tay-to/po-tah-to issue. I hear folks say that strength augments skill (of two equally skilled people, the stronger wins), and your statement comes to me as saying skill augments strength (of two equally strong people, the more skilled wins). It comes out to the same thing, and should be something we can all agree on, though we may differ on what the emphasis should be. Most of us have seen the videos of very skilled people manhandling much stronger opponents, and most of us have been manhandled by people slightly less skilled who had a lot more strength/conditioning/flexibility.


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I agree with the principles, though you and I might quibble over some of the fine points. I think it's a po-tay-to/po-tah-to issue. I hear folks say that strength augments skill (of two equally skilled people, the stronger wins), and your statement comes to me as saying skill augments strength (of two equally strong people, the more skilled wins). It comes out to the same thing, and should be something we can all agree on, though we may differ on what the emphasis should be. Most of us have seen the videos of very skilled people manhandling much stronger opponents, and most of us have been manhandled by people slightly less skilled who had a lot more strength/conditioning/flexibility.


i think its a where you are starting from perspective, fighting is an athletic activerty, you cant really split off skill from fitness in any meaningful way , and i think the ones who put all their effort in  skill development might get a shock if / when they get into a fighting with someone far more athletic, just as our friend the,zombie man will get a rude awakening if he ever gets to a mma class and finds his strong legs don't matter a jot if someone good decided to punch him on the nose or arm bar him

there a lad at my class who is really quite good, fast, good movement, a heavy punch/ kick on him and he is 30 years younger, if i try to kick box him i get beaten up, he is just to fast for me to hit, if i can grab an arm its all over for him as I'm to strong for him and i throw him about like a rag doll, which makes him very cross, he says that's not karate, no but your still on the floor.

i need more skill, he Needs more strength


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 29, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> the deadlift...


If you lift, you will need pull too.


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you lift, you will need pull too.


you most certain do, pull is a most neglected area!


----------



## drop bear (Nov 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> i think its a where you are starting from perspective, fighting is an athletic activerty, you cant really split off skill from fitness in any meaningful way , and i think the ones who put all their effort in  skill development might get a shock if / when they get into a fighting with someone far more athletic, just as our friend the,zombie man will get a rude awakening if he ever gets to a mma class and finds his strong legs don't matter a jot if someone good decided to punch him on the nose or arm bar him
> 
> there a lad at my class who is really quite good, fast, good movement, a heavy punch/ kick on him and he is 30 years younger, if i try to kick box him i get beaten up, he is just to fast for me to hit, if i can grab an arm its all over for him as I'm to strong for him and i throw him about like a rag doll, which makes him very cross, he says that's not karate, no but your still on the floor.
> 
> i need more skill, he Needs more strength



Skill and strength is the same thing. Power lifters are very technical for that reason.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you lift, you will need pull too.



I don't understand your point.

At first glance, this post of yours screams "DUH!" in my brain.

At second glance, this post of yours makes me think, "Do you actually believe that lifting and pulling are NOT synonymous?"

Pulling is part of lifting weights. Rows, shrugs, and pull-ups are forms of pulling. And so is the deadlift.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 29, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I don't understand your point.


If you train pulling for MA purpose, your training will be different from the body builder pulling.

This is the ancient weight pulley.







There are many different ways to train the pulling by using the weight pulley.






The weight pulley uses very long rope for special training purpose.


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I don't understand your point.
> 
> At first glance, this post of yours screams "DUH!" in my brain.
> 
> ...


the dead lift is mostly pushing with you legs, the pulling element is comparatively small,
 bar bell lifter in general seems to focus more on push than pull, which is why a good number of them have that forward twist of their upper body


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Skill and strength is the same thing. Power lifters are very technical for that reason.


I think he was differentiating MA skill from the strength that supports it. They overlap, for sure, but aren't entirely the same thing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I don't understand your point.
> 
> At first glance, this post of yours screams "DUH!" in my brain.
> 
> ...


There's definitely a pulling element, specifically in things like the rows. But it's not a pulling element for the lower body, and a different stress on the core than the pulls KFW is referring to. Cable machines provide a good option for these pulls in most gyms (and can stand in for both dumbbells and barbells in some exercises).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 29, 2017)

Believe it or not, some body builders have problem to do this.


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Skill and strength is the same thing. Power lifters are very technical for that reason.


clearly it isn't, that correct application of,strength is a motor skill of varying complexity dependent on what you are trying to do, but strength is not a, motor skill its,a simple biological fact of development like the ability to metabalise oxygen


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Skill and strength is the same thing.


The skill is what you train in your MA school. The strength is what you develop at home.

The skill is 50% and the strength is another 50%. How to land a punch on your opponent's face is skill. To have the power to knock your opponent down is ability.

A teacher can teach his students "how to break a clinch". The teacher can break all his student's clinch, but none of his students can break the teacher clinch. Why? Both the teacher and students use the same "skill". Since the teacher has more "ability" than the students have. The outcome will be different.


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Believe it or not, some body builders have problem to do this.


you don't meet many who can do a strict pull up or a pistol squat either


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Believe it or not, some body builders have problem to do this.


I'm pretty sure I would. My shoulders aren't nearly stable enough for that. It'd be something to work toward...


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> the dead lift is mostly pushing with you legs, the pulling element is comparatively small,
> bar bell lifter in general seems to focus more on push than pull, which is why a good number of them have that forward twist of their upper body



This is a difficult discussion to take on...

It depends on what deadlift you are referring to. Olympic weightlifters deadlift differently than powerlifters. Olympic weightlifters utilize their legs more in the deadlift compared to powerlifters, and powerlifters deadlift with minimal leg bend (at the starting position.). The deadlift is a pulling movement. It is a pulling movement because it utilizes your back muscles to a great extent. Your back muscles are pulling muscles. Therefore, the deadlift is a pulling movement. Yes, the quadriceps are taxed with the deadlift, but it's extremely minimal.

I'll assume you're referring to the "Olympic" deadlift than the powerlifting deadlift. Even then, the deadlift is still a pulling muscle because the primary muscles worked are the back.

As far as lifters being push-dominant more than pull-dominant, I say ********. Sorry for the bluntness, but I'm trying to make a point here.

The three main barbell sports are bodybuilding, powerlifting, and weightlifting. Pick one of them, and I'll explain to you exactly how wrong you are with your belief that lifters are push dominant.

This is ignorance at its finest. I'm saying that not to be a troll, but to make it clear to you that you obviously know nothing about lifting weights. I'm sorry. I really am. And most importantly, I'm sorry for speaking truth.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think he was differentiating MA skill from the strength that supports it. They overlap, for sure, but aren't entirely the same thing.



I definitely agree. Thanks.


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> This is a difficult discussion to take on...
> 
> It depends on what deadlift you are referring to. Olympic weightlifters deadlift differently than powerlifters. Olympic weightlifters utilize their legs more in the deadlift compared to powerlifters, and powerlifters deadlift with minimal leg bend (at the starting position.). The deadlift is a pulling movement. It is a pulling movement because it utilizes your back muscles to a great extent. Your back muscles are pulling muscles. Therefore, the deadlift is a pulling movement. Yes, the quadriceps are taxed with the deadlift, but it's extremely minimal.
> 
> ...


body building isn't sport , and TH. Highest % of people who lift weight  arnt doing as a sport either. they are try to get stronger for real sports. lots of these people lift badly lots and lots of them neglect pulling exercises , and building up your lower back does nothing to adjust out of balance,shoulder and upper back muscles from to much pushing and not enough pulling


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm pretty sure I would. My shoulders aren't nearly stable enough for that. It'd be something to work toward...


It's not the shoulder. It's the spine. This is what so called "core strength (or functional strength)". Try not to use more than 60 lb on your double heads. Also make sure you have belt on your waist.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> There's definitely a pulling element, specifically in things like the rows. But it's not a pulling element for the lower body, and a different stress on the core than the pulls KFW is referring to. Cable machines provide a good option for these pulls in most gyms (and can stand in for both dumbbells and barbells in some exercises).



I'm so confused. I'm having a hard time deciphering what you're trying to tell me.

Lower-body pulling-movements are a little tricky. *The reason why lifters never label lower-body exercises as either a pulling movement or a pushing movement is because a lot of the muscles in the lower-body are both.
*
Let's take a look at the squat, for example. It's arguably a pushing movement. But let's think deeper... The primary muscles worked in the squat are: Quadriceps, hamstrings, glutes and lower back. How can you label the squat as a pushing movement if three of those aforementioned muscles (hams, glutes, and back) are actually PULLING muscles?

Pulling, technically-speaking, is about *bringing an object closer to your body. *Pushing is the opposite (pushing AWAY from you). In the squat, what exactly are you pulling to yourself? ... Nothing. But in the squat, what exactly are you *pushing away *from you? The floor? But how can you push something away from you if it won't move? The squat doesn't move the floor away from you. You move YOUR BODY away from the floor, which is extremely difficult to classify as either pulling or pushing.

One of the most popular body-part splits in bodybuilding is the Push-Pull-Legs routine. Day 1, you workout your pushing muscles. Day 2, you workout your pulling muscles. Day 3, you work your legs. (Some people recommend an M/W/F schedule while others recommend a 6-day-week-schedule where you cycle through Push, Pull, and Legs twice.) Did you notice anything about the program? The leg-day is separate from either the push day and the pull day. That's because legs neither push or pull or EITHER push or pull. It's extremely difficult and confusing to classify what it is exactly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's not the shoulder. It's the spine. This is what so called "core strength (or functional strength)". Try not to use more than 60 lb on your double heads. Also make sure you have belt on your waist.


In my case, it is the shoulders. I probably can't do 20 lbs. that way right now. I lost a lot of muscle while I was injured.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I'm so confused. I'm having a hard time deciphering what you're trying to tell me.
> 
> Lower-body pulling-movements are a little tricky. *The reason why lifters never label lower-body exercises as either a pulling movement or a pushing movement is because a lot of the muscles in the lower-body are both.
> *
> ...


You're using the technical differentiation of push-pull muscles. I'm speaking from a functional perspective. When we lift, we push up with our legs. With pulling like the pulley/cable exercises, the legs are forced to (along with the core) to work laterally. It's a different stress, and more directly applicable to most martial arts movements. There's definitely value in lifting, but there are functional areas that cannot be targeted with gravity alone.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You're using the technical differentiation of push-pull muscles. I'm speaking from a functional perspective. When we lift, we push up with our legs. With pulling like the pulley/cable exercises, the legs are forced to (along with the core) to work laterally. It's a different stress, and more directly applicable to most martial arts movements. There's definitely value in lifting, but there are functional areas that cannot be targeted with gravity alone.



I think this was well said.

Despite my background of pure powerlifting, I wouldn't go against training someone with these "functional exercises" you're referring to. That's of course IF I was training someone. I'm not. I'm just saying IF.

Edit: By the way, have you seen how some Pehlwani wrestlers train?? I can show you a youtube video of them doing their own version of functional training.


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I'm so confused. I'm having a hard time deciphering what you're trying to tell me.
> 
> Lower-body pulling-movements are a little tricky. *The reason why lifters never label lower-body exercises as either a pulling movement or a pushing movement is because a lot of the muscles in the lower-body are both.
> *
> ...


pushing your body away from the floor is still PUSHING,


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> pushing your body away from the floor is still PUSHING,



You may be right. It's complicated...


----------



## Finlay (Nov 29, 2017)

Hello

As a recreational lifter I will add another 2 cents

The squat and the deadlift both activate the posterior chain. Which could be classified as pulling muscle since they are on your back.

However I believe that the deadlift is classified as a 'hinge' motion rather than a pull.

For upper body pull, nothing beats pull ups


Which segways neatly into body weight (bw) exercises.

It is often said that bw is.more effective that barbell training. There is some truth in that but again there is a lot of caveats

Take push up vs bench press for example
(Simplified)

Logistically
Push up can be done anywhere, push up is safer, and need less equipment 

Effectiveness
There are many variations of the push up that create a lot of tension in the body. Working the CNS more and getting strong without nessesarily building a lot of muscle.

However all these variations take time to learn. You have to really want to make the most out of a simple exercise.  

With the barbell, you learn the movement, in this case bench press, and then slowly add weight to the bar. The movement is refined continually (much like developing a punch or a kick) but essentially remains the same.

I am yet to see a bw exercise that matches deadlift


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I think this was well said.
> 
> Despite my background of pure powerlifting, I wouldn't go against training someone with these "functional exercises" you're referring to. That's of course IF I was training someone. I'm not. I'm just saying IF.
> 
> Edit: By the way, have you seen how some Pehlwani wrestlers train?? I can show you a youtube video of them doing their own version of functional training.


That'd be an interesting video - post it, please.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 29, 2017)

Finlay said:


> Hello
> 
> As a recreational lifter I will add another 2 cents
> 
> ...



I agree with a lot of what you just said.

I don't agree with your comment about the CNS. Are you saying that push-ups are more effective in training the CNS more than bench presses? Is that it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> I agree with a lot of what you just said.
> 
> I don't agree with your comment about the CNS. Are you saying that push-ups are more effective in training the CNS more than bench presses? Is that it?


I think his comment was that the push-up range of exercises (all the variations) requires more CNS development than the bench press. If you only did one variation of push-up and one of bench press, you'd have similar CNS requirements. If you only did one variation of push-up and three of bench press (standard, wide, narrow), you'd have more CNS requirements for bench press. But there  are many more variations of push-up available (dive bomber, Spiderman, superstar, judo, triangle, wide, narrow, fists, clapping, one-hand, one-foot, etc.).


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That'd be an interesting video - post it, please.


----------



## Finlay (Nov 29, 2017)

No my point was that you can change the push up to increase the amount you work the CNS (more than basic push up, not more than heavy bench press) 

Push up
Strict slow push up
One hand negative push up
One hand push up
One hand one foot push up

Would be one example of a progression. However like I said in the post these take time to learn. I also believe there is a limit that is reached after which you need to add external weight. If being that strong is your goal


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That'd be an interesting video - post it, please.



By the way, on the video I posted, go to 8:05. You'll see some good stuff there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


>


That first one would be similar to the single-head KFW has posted here before from TCMA training.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 29, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> You may be right. It's complicated...


Pushing is going away from your body.  Pulling is going towards it.  Not too complicated.

Some exercises do both, which muddies the water a bit though.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 29, 2017)

Many people train "push" and "pull". Not too many people train "twist".


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many people train "push" and "pull". Not too many people train "twist".



Wow...

I believe that the one who invented/discovered that exercise and recommended to others is nothing short of brilliant. I sincerely believe that. I really do. lol

When did that exercise become prevalent in martial arts? Was it an ancient invention?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 29, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> When did that exercise become prevalent in martial arts? Was it an ancient invention?


The original of this training cannot be traced. It can be over 2000 years old.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many people train "push" and "pull". Not too many people train "twist".


IMO, if you're training pushing and pulling components of that twist, and doing "live" grappling, a separate exercise for the twist isn't necessary. The functional gains are likely to be a tiny margin.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> IMO, if you're training pushing and pulling components of that twist, and doing "live" grappling, a separate exercise for the twist isn't necessary. The functional gains are likely to be a tiny margin.



That is not really true for any other exersise. I mean you would think that you get enough grip training in live grappling.

But aparently not.






I mean I can ask my fitness coach if you want. But I think that if you are twisting in a fight. Train twisting.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 30, 2017)

The problem is that there are different physiques (the classic "meso, ecto, endo as an example) and differing combinations of muscle fibers between fast/slow twitch.  Some people will respond better to certain types of training based on that.  So many trainers use a cookie cutter approach for what worked FOR THEM and apply it to everyone else.  

Second, most people confuse "strength training" with "bodybuilding" and use an approach meant to cause hypertrophy (bigger muscles as the goal) instead of focusing on just getting stronger.

Third, there is a point of diminishing returns.  A martial artist only has so much time in the day and the best way to improve at an activity is to do that activity.  Balancing the practice of their art with conditioning and strength training is hard for many people who can't do it full time.  This is where the issue becomes really blurred because pro athletes take PED's that change their physique composition into something most "natural" athletes will not be able to accomplish.  It allows them to grow/repair muscle faster and also have faster recovery times so they can do more.

So, looking at many "pro trainers", they can do alot of things wrong that still work because they are either working with genetically gifted individuals that respond quickly to almost any training or chemically gifted athletes that will respond quickly to almost any training, or a combo of the two.

Add that into the mix of "martial arts training" and much of what is done is still around because of tradition.  Look at boxing even, there is a big argument about "roadwork".  Some "traditional" boxing trainers will say that 5-10 miles a day was good for Dempsey (or whoever) so it must be good for my fighter.  Other trainers will say that they just didn't know any better due to lack of exercise science and have their athletes doing intervals that mimic timed rounds.  If you are a great trainer and produce champions despite your less than optimal training, and the other guy is spot on with the science but can't produce a champion, who are you going to listen to?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> That is not really true for any other exersise. I mean you would think that you get enough grip training in live grappling.
> 
> But aparently not.
> 
> ...


My point is that the base muscles are being trained with pushing and pulling components (assuming you do them one-sided). And the coordination for twisting is trained pretty effectively during drills. I'm not sure there's sufficient benefit to adding a specific twisting exercise. As for grip, most standard exercises don't train the grip to a level that will help hold a strong arm that's trying to break free. That does need additional training if you want to use it at a high level. I guess if we're talking the highest levels of training, the marginal gain from twisting exercises might have merit - there's much done at the highest level that only makes sense at that level.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 30, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> The problem is that there are different physiques (the classic "meso, ecto, endo as an example) and differing combinations of muscle fibers between fast/slow twitch.  Some people will respond better to certain types of training based on that.  So many trainers use a cookie cutter approach for what worked FOR THEM and apply it to everyone else.
> 
> Second, most people confuse "strength training" with "bodybuilding" and use an approach meant to cause hypertrophy (bigger muscles as the goal) instead of focusing on just getting stronger.
> 
> ...



This is a great post.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> IMO, if you're training pushing and pulling components of that twist, and doing "live" grappling, a separate exercise for the twist isn't necessary. The functional gains are likely to be a tiny margin.


The harder that you can twist your opponent in the clockwise direction, the harder that your opponent may resist toward the counter-clockwise direction, the more force that you can borrow if you reverse twisting to the counter-clockwise direction. If you grab on a cow's horn, you will need a lot of twisting force to take that cow down.

The more that you can give, the more that you can take.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> you would think that you get enough grip training in live grappling.


Agree! If you want to develop a pair of monster grip, you need to train like a monster. We don't born with grip strength. We also don't develop grip strength through our daily activity.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The harder that you can twist your opponent in the clockwise direction, the harder that your opponent may resist toward the counter-clockwise direction, the more force that you can borrow if you reverse twisting to the counter-clockwise direction. If you grab on a cow's horn, you will need a lot of twisting force to take that cow down.
> 
> The more that you can give, the more that you can take.


Agreed. I just think the returns on this (if the components are already being strengthened) are marginal.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I just think the returns on this (if the components are already being strengthened) are marginal.


The reward will be great. In jacket wrestling, when you grab on your opponent, if your opponent cannot break your grips. None of his throw will work on you. You can then take your time to attack whenever you may like to.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 30, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! If you want to develop a pair of monster grip, you need to train like a monster. We don't born with grip strength. We also don't develop grip strength through our daily activity.


Depends on your daily activity.  My father has been a mechanic going on 50 years.  His hands look like he’s wearing boxing gloves, and his forearms are pretty close to the size of his biceps.

Even though chicks don’t like them, I wish I had his hands.  Those things could punch through anything.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 30, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Even though chicks don’t like them, I wish I had his hands.  Those things could punch through anything.



Huh? I thought women like muscles. Muscles in men is sexy. lol. Just take a look at Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino. Women love him. He's the epitome of male sexiness.

https://i1.wp.com/starcasm.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/TheSituation.jpg


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The reward will be great. In jacket wrestling, when you grab on your opponent, if your opponent cannot break your grips. None of his throw will work on you. You can then take your time to attack whenever you may like to.


That’s the value of being strong. I don’t dispute that. I’m just not sure a specific twisting exercise is necessary to that. It can be very helpful if you’re putting together a regimen that it fills gaps in. It has less benefit if the same muscles are already being developed with other strength exercises.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Nov 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That’s the value of being strong. I don’t dispute that. I’m just not sure a specific twisting exercise is necessary to that. It can be very helpful if you’re putting together a regimen that it fills gaps in. It has less benefit if the same muscles are already being developed with other strength exercises.



I couldn't agree more!

Plus, a well-designed strength training program *will get your entire body strong. *One thing that a lot of people forget is that the body is one piece. It is actually virtually impossible to truly isolate a muscle. All exercises and all movements require the integration of the whole body. For example, even though chin-ups primarily train the lats, you won't be able to do chin-ups if you have injured biceps. And you won't be able to do a barbell curl with a weight that you can't deadlift using your back and core.


----------



## New Instructor (Dec 1, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> That's bad logic. Saying that X is good because Badass Joe does it is like saying you'll achieve Arnold Schwarzenegger's (prime) physique by doing Arnold Schwarzenegger's exact training routine.
> 
> It doesn't work that way.
> 
> ...



   Shadow boxing with light weights is a way for boxers to develop fast twitch muscles and increase their punching speed.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Dec 1, 2017)

New Instructor said:


> Shadow boxing with light weights is a way for boxers to develop fast twitch muscles and increase their punching speed.



You develop fast twitch muscles best through lifting weights. Upper-body plyometrics is infinitely better than shadow boxing.


----------



## MA_Student (Dec 1, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Huh? I thought women like muscles. Muscles in men is sexy. lol. Just take a look at Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino. Women love him. He's the epitome of male sexiness.
> 
> https://i1.wp.com/starcasm.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/TheSituation.jpg


Lol no women liked his money


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 1, 2017)

New Instructor said:


> Shadow boxing with light weights is a way for boxers to develop fast twitch muscles and increase their punching speed.



Lots of disagreement with this..
punching with light weights anyone here do it? (Floyd Mayweather does it)

Again reading the pros and cons, it is all anecdotal evidence and appeal to champs who do it.  If you look for any science behind it, you don't see that.  That thread pretty much sums up my previous post in regards to training practices in combat sports/arts


----------



## Zombocalypse (Dec 1, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Lol no women liked his money



lol. I know. I was just goofing around.

Speaking of Sorrentino, have you seen his roast video?? It was terrible and he wasn't even the one being roasted.


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> Lots of disagreement with this..
> punching with light weights anyone here do it? (Floyd Mayweather does it)
> 
> Again reading the pros and cons, it is all anecdotal evidence and appeal to champs who do it.  If you look for any science behind it, you don't see that.  That thread pretty much sums up my previous post in regards to training practices in combat sports/arts


its resistance training, there is quite a lot of evidence that resistance training is effective


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> You develop fast twitch muscles best through lifting weights. Upper-body plyometrics is infinitely better than shadow boxing.


you don't increase your speed of movement by moving heavy weights slowly, you do by moving lighter weights quickly, which is amongst other things what shadow boxing does, the weights being your arms, the gloves your wearing or the light weights you are holding in your hand, its not the fast twitch muscle that are the factor, it your cns connection to them


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> you don't increase your speed of movement by moving heavy weights slowly, you do by moving lighter weights quickly, which is amongst other things what shadow boxing does, the weights being your arms, the gloves your wearing or the light weights you are holding in your hand, its not the fast twitch muscle that are the factor, it your cns connection to them


This is my understanding, as well. Do any of our appropriately degreed members have some clarification or information to add to this?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This is my understanding, as well. Do any of our appropriately degreed members have some clarification or information to add to this?



Jobo is correct. Fast twitch muscles are developed by fast movements.


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This is my understanding, as well. Do any of our appropriately degreed members have some clarification or information to add to this?


like all these things , there is a question of degree, if you train yourself to move say a 300lb bench press slowly, then there is little doubt you can now press 100lbs more quickly, but that will make little or no difference to how fast you can move your un weighted arm.

you get better results moving 25 lbs very quickly or a couple of pounds extremely quickly as that is taking the muscle you have developed with your heavy press and training your cns to deliver fast movement. You have to train with a close proximity to the movement you are trying to develop, bench pressing and or press ups, are not that close to a punching movement that you can train them and develop your cns to deliver a fast/ powerful punch using them exclusively, not that it won't make your punch harder, just that there is no better alternative to develop punching speed and hence power, than doing a punching movement FAST with or without moderate weight


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> its resistance training, there is quite a lot of evidence that resistance training is effective



As you always say to people, "where is the specific study that says this"?  So, I would like to see the specific study and research that this was tested and not just a transfer of other training and saying it improves punching. 

Yes, resistance training can increase muscle speed etc.  But, punching with a weight changes the dynamics and muscles used in a punch.  You would need to produce a study that shows that it actually increases the rate of muscles firing to actually improve speed beyond the "hard wiring" increase of a beginner grooving the motion to become more effective regardless.  

Using weights while doing other exercises was popular in the 70's and fell out of disuse because of injuries.



> Walking or otherwise exercising with hand weights is very hard on the shoulders, according to Dr. Mehmet Oz in "You: Losing Weight." It can turn a simple workout into increased potential for repetitive stress injuries due to the pull on your shoulders and upper arms. This risk is exacerbated while punching because your extended arm places maximum stress on that area.



You have shown nothing more than the boxing thread stated.  It's a popular training tool, but no one has actually done research to support it versus other safer methods.  Which is the point of this thread.  Why do people use methods and others don't use methods other than personal choice when there is not a specific methodology that supports it other than "so and so" used it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> you don't increase your speed of movement by moving heavy weights slowly, you do by moving lighter weights quickly, ...


Agree with you 100% there. The only problem is sometime it's hard to distinguish heavy and light. When you feel comfortable with light weight and fast speed, you may want to increase your weight a bit more. Soon you have changed from light weight to not too light weight. I have hurt my elbow joint 4 times in my life. Over self-confidence is the problem.


----------



## Buka (Dec 1, 2017)

Contraction of muscles, we all know that's key. And it's the fast twitch we all strive for. But it's difficult trying to isolate a fast contraction in, say, your triceps, at least in punching movement. If you stand and are ready to punch, try concentrating on contracting your tricep - it's almost impossible to do.

Sure, you can do a weight training method with a tricep exercise, but it's not going to help with punching as much as you might think. It's also kind of dangerous to do the standard triceps weight exercises really fast.

What's key is contracting the muscles in your core, and the muscles of your body together as a unit. It helps them fire quicker. It helps in that split second your decide to throw that punch at that opening....by the time you think it, that punch of yours should already be returning as another one is already being thrown.

Trained with some top lever strikers. Used to do "flinch/flex exercises. Just strolling across the gym and flinching your core like your friend walking by you was going to give you a shot in the stomach you weren't ready for. At the same time you're flinching your core you do it with your grip, your hips, your legs, your back, your elbows slamming against your ribs. Just one massive contraction to your whole body for just a split second and relax immediately.

It can do wonders for your fast twitch and your punching.

The best weight exercise I've done for fast twitch punching is a bench press, but in a specific way, not the standard. And it's not for beginners who are just using weights for a little bit. Say your max bench is 250 pounds, say you can do 185 easy and often....lets just use those numbers for the sake of using something. 

Throw a 45 on each end of the bar, so you have 135 lbs. Assume the bench position, bench it, lower it quickly and as you bench it - let it go at the top so the bar leaves your hands. Just an inch or so, catch it, allowing the weight to blast your arms downward [it's won't be heavy or hard to manage using the max numbers we used] but barely let it touch your chest, as opposed to bouncing it off your chest, and blast it skywards again, this time letting it go three or four inches out of your hands. Repeat. It sounds like it could be dangerous but we did them for years and years and never had any problems, accidents or mis-steps. [Just keep beginners out of the equation] They give great blasting power and speed with the extension of the arms. [but arm extension isn't exactly punching] Gives good fast twitch payoffs for the extension of your arms. Always have a trainer there. And don't friken kill yourself.


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> As you always say to people, "where is the specific study that says this"?  So, I would like to see the specific study and research that this was tested and not just a transfer of other training and saying it improves punching.
> 
> Yes, resistance training can increase muscle speed etc.  But, punching with a weight changes the dynamics and muscles used in a punch.  You would need to produce a study that shows that it actually increases the rate of muscles firing to actually improve speed beyond the "hard wiring" increase of a beginner grooving the motion to become more effective regardless.
> 
> ...


punching with a light weight doesn't change the muscles use in a punch, at all


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 1, 2017)

What a load of rubbish there's plenty of people in all types of martial arts who know loads about sport science. Sure there's some who don't but martial arts is martial arts they focus on martial arts training not weight lifting.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 1, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> martial arts is martial arts they focus on martial arts training not weight lifting.


In MA training, you use:

- partner drills to "develop" your MA skill.
- sparring/wrestling to "test" your MA skill.
- solo drills/forms to "polish" your MA skill.
- weight equipment training to "enhance" your MA skill.

The single head can enhance your leg lifting throw when training partner is not available.


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 1, 2017)

Buka said:


> Contraction of muscles, we all know that's key. And it's the fast twitch we all strive for. But it's difficult trying to isolate a fast contraction in, say, your triceps, at least in punching movement. If you stand and are ready to punch, try concentrating on contracting your tricep - it's almost impossible to do.
> 
> Sure, you can do a weight training method with a tricep exercise, but it's not going to help with punching as much as you might think. It's also kind of dangerous to do the standard triceps weight exercises really fast.
> 
> ...


I’ve done the same thing, only using a Smith machine.  Weight goes up as fast as you want it to, but doesn’t come back down fast.  The first few times were pretty scary though; it took some trust in a machine not failing.


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> punching with a light weight doesn't change the muscles use in a punch, at all


Look at force vectors.  When you have a weight in your hand, the downward force vector increases (meaning you’re using more strength to keep your hand from dropping).

Rather than having a weight in your hand, you’d be far better off using a pulley or similar that resists your punching movement.  Put the pulley behind you at around armpit level, handle in your hand, and punch.  The resistance is directly opposing the punching motion instead of the dumbbell pulling your hand down.

The only benefit to the dumbbell being in your hand for punching is there’s a bit more inertia to overcome due to the increased mass.  The dumbbell isn’t directly opposing your punching motion, it’s trying to alter the trajectory.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 1, 2017)

Here are some interested ancient weight equipment training. It's easy to see that the purpose is to "enhance" MA skill and not just trying to build big muscle.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 1, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Look at force vectors.  When you have a weight in your hand, the downward force vector increases (meaning you’re using more strength to keep your hand from dropping).



My initial reaction was to make essentially the same post you did, but on re-reading the line, I took it to mean that it doesn't change WHICH muscles are in use. Which it doesn't. I agree that a pulley system is probably better than punching with a dumbbell, though.


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 1, 2017)

This says it better than I did...


 

I’ve done this with hands and pulleys.  I like the pulleys better, but some like bands.

I’ve also done the same with kicks - put an ankle cuff on, attach to pulley, and kick.  Roundhouse kicks were tricky, but front, back and side kicks were fine.  I like pulley better than bands.


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 1, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> My initial reaction was to make essentially the same post you did, but on re-reading the line, I took it to mean that it doesn't change WHICH muscles are in use. Which it doesn't. I agree that a pulley system is probably better than punching with a dumbbell, though.


I thought that while I was writing it too.  The muscles don’t change, but the emphasis does.  Kind of like dips will work triceps and pecs (depending on elbow position), and bench press will too; but there’s more emphasis on the particular muscle with each exercise.

Edit:  Better yet, hand position in pull-up exercises - arms out far, more back, less biceps.  Hands close and palms facing each other, less back, more biceps.  Same muscles used, different proportions/emphasis.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Dec 1, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Jobo is correct. Fast twitch muscles are developed by fast movements.



You also have to add "slow-movements but with maximal loads". When you lift a certain amount of weight that's too heavy for you *but are lifting it with maximum effort, *then you are, in fact, hitting those fast twitch fibers. The appropriate weight would be your five-rep max and heavier.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> you don't increase your speed of movement by moving heavy weights slowly, you do by moving lighter weights quickly, which is amongst other things what shadow boxing does, the weights being your arms, the gloves your wearing or the light weights you are holding in your hand, its not the fast twitch muscle that are the factor, it your cns connection to them



Jobo, Jobo, Jobo... I can't believe how others are actually agreeing with you on this.

Wrong wrong wrong.

There are two ways to recruit your Type 2 B muscle fibers. Number one: Lift a light load with maximum speed. Number two: Lift a heavy load with maximum speed.

Now, you are all wondering how the heck you can move a heavy load with maximum speed. The answer is, you lift it with *maximum effort. *By doing that, you will in fact be recruiting your higher-threshold motor units, as opposed to the weaker and slower "red" fibers.

PLYOMETRICS recruit your fast twitch fibers as well because you are moving a light load with maximum speed. I got the impression that you didn't know what plyometrics are.


----------



## Hyoho (Dec 1, 2017)

To answer the original post: As it's M.A. one hopes to incorporate what we learn into natural movement. This means building up a particular but not over developed muscle set getting rid of unneccesary phsyical actions or unwanted actions. With this in mind we hope to become an adept. We can acheive far more using our brain and timing and dont have to rely on muscle power.


----------



## Finlay (Dec 1, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In MA training, you use:
> 
> - partner drills to "develop" your MA skill.
> - sparring/wrestling to "test" your MA skill.
> ...




Have to say that is one of the nicest exercises I have seen in a long time


----------



## Hyoho (Dec 1, 2017)

Finlay said:


> Have to say that is one of the nicest exercises I have seen in a long time


Dont forget time. As long as you overuse any ability in an imature way you will never actually get it. Some things come with age.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 4, 2017)

Increase Your Fast-Twitch Potential With Isometrics 

An article that cites a sports science journal about using isometrics over plyometrics to increase speed.

You also DO build fast twitch muscles and get faster, because the muscle recruit at a faster rate as a couple other people pointed out by lifting very heavy weights (relative to the individual) as quickly as you can, which when the weight is heavy will still be a relatively slow movement.


----------



## Buka (Dec 4, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I’ve done the same thing, only using a Smith machine.  Weight goes up as fast as you want it to, but doesn’t come back down fast.  The first few times were pretty scary though; it took some trust in a machine not failing.



I had to look up what a Smith machine was. I've used them, but never knew what they were called.

Yes, I found it odd the first time. Or anytime I changed the weight and started another set. Great machine for when you're tuckered out but still want to squat.


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 4, 2017)

Buka said:


> I had to look up what a Smith machine was. I've used them, but never knew what they were called.
> 
> Yes, I found it odd the first time. Or anytime I changed the weight and started another set. Great machine for when you're tuckered out but still want to squat.


Or great for rolling a bench in and bench pressing when you don’t have a spotter.  Or your spotter can’t possibly lift the amount of weight you’re lifting off of you.  The only downside is it’s straight up and down motion vs the natural arching motion you’d follow with a barbell or dumbbells.

The first time I did the plyo benchpress (throwing it in the air) on a smith machine, I had about 175 lbs on it.  All I could think was “God I hope this machine works right!!!”


----------



## Buka (Dec 4, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Or great for rolling a bench in and bench pressing when you don’t have a spotter.  Or your spotter can’t possibly lift the amount of weight you’re lifting off of you.  The only downside is it’s straight up and down motion vs the natural arching motion you’d follow with a barbell or dumbbells.
> 
> The first time I did the plyo benchpress (throwing it in the air) on a smith machine, I had about 175 lbs on it.  All I could think was “God I hope this machine works right!!!”



Never once thought of it for benching when not having a spotter. That's a real good tip.

Yeah, the first time letting it go on a plyo bench is a little bit of an _uh oh_ moment.


----------



## Finlay (Dec 5, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> Increase Your Fast-Twitch Potential With Isometrics
> 
> An article that cites a sports science journal about using isometrics over plyometrics to increase speed.
> 
> You also DO build fast twitch muscles and get faster, because the muscle recruit at a faster rate as a couple other people pointed out by lifting very heavy weights (relative to the individual) as quickly as you can, which when the weight is heavy will still be a relatively slow movement.




Yes exactly this. Heavy weights will increase speed.  If you think if speed as explosiveness, then going from relaxed to high tension quickly will help this.

Lifting heavy weights quickly teaches exactly that.


----------



## jobo (Dec 5, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> Increase Your Fast-Twitch Potential With Isometrics
> 
> An article that cites a sports science journal about using isometrics over plyometrics to increase speed.
> 
> You also DO build fast twitch muscles and get faster, because the muscle recruit at a faster rate as a couple other people pointed out by lifting very heavy weights (relative to the individual) as quickly as you can, which when the weight is heavy will still be a relatively slow movement.


the very first paragraph in that says...... Isometrics are a useful addition to speed training. not that isometrics ARE the speed training. Just that they develop the fast twitch fibres, you still need to practise moving fast!!!!!.

the case that they are kinder to the body is somewhat debatable, isometrics put a massive strain on you, particularly your heart and  cns, which is one of the reasons they ar so effective at stimulating muscle development, but they are of course lacking in the eccentric movement, and full range of movement, so are ultimately lacking in development potential.

I'm not aware of any sports that require fast movement, which is most of them, where they don't bother to train moving fast, are you?


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 5, 2017)

jobo said:


> the very first paragraph in that says...... Isometrics are a useful addition to speed training. not that isometrics ARE the speed training. Just that they develop the fast twitch fibres, you still need to practise moving fast!!!!!.
> 
> the case that they are kinder to the body is somewhat debatable, isometrics put a massive strain on you, particularly your heart and  cns, which is one of the reasons they ar so effective at stimulating muscle development, but they are of course lacking in the eccentric movement, and full range of movement, so are ultimately lacking in development potential.
> 
> I'm not aware of any sports that require fast movement, which is most of them, where they don't bother to train moving fast, are you?



Ummm, not sure where you are pulling that out of.  That had nothing to do with my post.  People were disagreeing with the fact that heavy lifts will increase speed and fast twitch muscles due to the slow nature of the lift (can't do both heavy and fast at the same time).  The first sentence of my post talked about isometrics in relation to ploymetrics (no movement at all, very similar to a max lift and ploymetrics, a very fast movement).

Saying you need to "practice moving fast" doesn't mean anything at all in a training strategy if you are only talking about speed training. What does that mean?  What training protocol are you employing?  How do you quantify that to show improvement?  Which AGAIN is THE WHOLE POINT of this thread.  Why is there so many opinions about "proper training" when it comes to martial arts and physical fitness.  There are different ways to do it and many of those ways have no research backing, only anecdotal evidence that it is effective (punching with light weights actually increases punching speed or running lots of miles conditions you for boxing rounds, etc. etc.)


----------



## jobo (Dec 5, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> Ummm, not sure where you are pulling that out of.  That had nothing to do with my post.  People were disagreeing with the fact that heavy lifts will increase speed and fast twitch muscles due to the slow nature of the lift (can't do both heavy and fast at the same time).  The first sentence of my post talked about isometrics in relation to ploymetrics (no movement at all, very similar to a max lift and ploymetrics, a very fast movement).
> 
> Saying you need to "practice moving fast" doesn't mean anything at all in a training strategy if you are only talking about speed training. What does that mean?  What training protocol are you employing?  How do you quantify that to show improvement?  Which AGAIN is THE WHOLE POINT of this thread.  Why is there so many opinions about "proper training" when it comes to martial arts and physical fitness.  There are different ways to do it and many of those ways have no research backing, only anecdotal evidence that it is effective (punching with light weights actually increases punching speed or running lots of miles conditions you for boxing rounds, etc. etc.)


I'm disagreeing with your interpretation that article and to some extent the article its self.

no movement at all is NOT similar to heavy slow movement, not similar at all, as one has movement and one has NONE. They couldnt actually be more different


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 5, 2017)

jobo said:


> I'm disagreeing with your interpretation that article and to some extent the article its self.
> 
> no movement at all is NOT similar to heavy slow movement, not similar at all, as one has movement and one has NONE. They couldnt actually be more different



On the surface you are correct.  Once again, nitpicking instead of looking at the two on a complete physiological basis.


jobo said:


> I'm disagreeing with your interpretation that article and to some extent the article its self.
> 
> no movement at all is NOT similar to heavy slow movement, not similar at all, as one has movement and one has NONE. They couldnt actually be more different



Yep, on the surface not looking at anything happening neurologically and physiologically you are quite right.  You again are missing key points in an effort just to disagree.



> _The following is an exclusive excerpt from the book_ _Strength Training, Second Edition__, published by Human Kinetics. _
> 
> Periodization of training is based on the principles stated previously—that different loads (light, moderate, or heavy) or power requirements recruit different types and numbers of motor units. On a light training day, you would allow some muscle fibers to rest by recruiting fewer of them than on a heavy training day. For example, if your maximal lift (1RM) for one dumbbell biceps curl is 100 pounds (45.4 kg), then 10 pounds (4.5 kg) of resistance represents only about 10 percent of your maximal strength in the biceps curl exercise. Performing 15 repetitions of the dumbbell biceps curl with 10 pounds would activate only a small number of your motor units in the biceps. Conversely, performing a biceps curl with 100 pounds would require all of the available motor units.
> 
> ...



So, in an isometric you can activate a very large number of muscle fibers to get stronger.  The object doesn't move.  In a very heavy lift (1-3 reps max) the lift activates a very large number of muscle fibers to get stronger.  The difference is that the lift will get you stronger in the complete range of motion of the lift, whereas the isometric only increases strength in the position held.  That was my comparision, from a "body" perspective the muscle is being almost completely activated to get stronger, they are very similar in that manner.


----------



## jobo (Dec 5, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> On the surface you are correct.  Once again, nitpicking instead of looking at the two on a complete physiological basis.
> 
> 
> Yep, on the surface not looking at anything happening neurologically and physiologically you are quite right.  You again are missing key points in an effort just to disagree.
> ...


that's not how isometrics work and why lifting heavy and doing isometrics are not inter changeable, though both have their place in a training program.
iso work mostly through over loading the nervous system and metabolic stress, lifting through damaging the muscle particularly on the eccentric portion.

Iso  can make you very strong but only in a limited range of motion.

perhaps you would care to explain how being stronger in a limited range makes you faster.?

that article made no mention of heavy lifting, only you have decided that they are the same as iso.

nor did it say that other speed training wasn't required, you have just assumed that to be so.

what it did suggest is that iso gives the same advantages at pylo ,, which may or may not be true,, but then pylo only uses a very limited range of motion as well, ???


----------



## jobo (Dec 6, 2017)

Finlay said:


> Yes exactly this. Heavy weights will increase speed.  If you think if speed as explosiveness, then going from relaxed to high tension quickly will help this.
> 
> Lifting heavy weights quickly teaches exactly that.


I've argued upteen times on here that building a strengh base is a pre requirement of building an athletic base, but they are not the exact same thing.

at a simple level there is no doubt that lifting( say building up) to 300 lbs means you can lift 100 lbs quicker than you did when you could only lift 100 lbs. In that sense you are now faster than you were at the 100 lbs level

. What's less sure is if that has made any measurable differeranc to the speed you can move an unweighted arm, in say a punch, as throwing a punch has a high level of motor skill in it  . It need far more development of th cns, than just being stronger than you were.

it may well have given you the capacity to punch faster, if you then work on the motor skill element, but to suggest that the strengh increase alone has made much difference is just speculation on your part.

as evidence of that short fall, all sports that have a speed eliment in them, spend a great deal of time in training speed elements as well as strengh. soccer players build up their leg muscles. AND run fast. They don't just do heavily weight squats and say " rights that enough for me to out sprint the full back over 20 yards. Because it isnt


----------



## Finlay (Dec 6, 2017)

Sorry, but I never said that lift heavy is all you need

You can build explosiveness with heavy lifting but then it need to be translated into the required skill, this is the same for all resistance training to aid sports. You build the attributes and then refine then into skill

Maybe I misread one of the posts above but I believe that it was stated that heavy weights are no good for building speed.

This point is incorrect on my opinion and experience


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> that's not how isometrics work and why lifting heavy and doing isometrics are not inter changeable, though both have their place in a training program.
> iso work mostly through over loading the nervous system and metabolic stress, lifting through damaging the muscle particularly on the eccentric portion.
> 
> Iso  can make you very strong but only in a limited range of motion.
> ...



You obviously did NOT read the article I _just _posted.  I am done trying to cite research on how the body actually works when all you want to do is argue your point contrary to what the science says.  You are picking and choosing PIECES of an argument and setting up strawman arguments with people that aren't even being made.


----------



## jobo (Dec 6, 2017)

Finlay said:


> Sorry, but I never said that lift heavy is all you need
> 
> You can build explosiveness with heavy lifting but then it need to be translated into the required skill, this is the same for all resistance training to aid sports. You build the attributes and then refine then into skill
> 
> ...


your just making things up. You said, lifting heavy weight made you fast, you now changed that to explosive, " explosive" is fast movement . You are now saying that fast movement needs skill development. Ergo lifting heavy weights doesn't make you explosive. ? Perhaps you can clarify your position?


----------



## jobo (Dec 6, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> You obviously did NOT read the article I _just _posted.  I am done trying to cite research on how the body actually works when all you want to do is argue your point contrary to what the science says.  You are picking and choosing PIECES of an argument and setting up strawman arguments with people that aren't even being made.


you haven't sited anyresearch,you link to an article that sited a very small quote out of some research and then concluded that the artical is its,self research.
and then miss understood it.????


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> you haven't sited anyresearch,you link to an article that sited a very small quote out of some research and then concluded that the artical is its,self research.
> and then miss understood it.????



Once again did NOT read the 2nd article I posted.  I never said that the article was the research.  I always stated that the article cited the research giving a person a summary of the research and a place to look at the research oneself if they chose to.

In the 2nd article, it is a textbook and here is a summary of the people who put it together.  If you had taken the time to read the quote I posted, you would see that it answered your disagreements.


> Written by a team of experts chosen by the NSCA, Strength Training combines the most valuable information with best instruction for proven results:
> 
> -Assessing strength to personalize programs
> -Incorporating new exercises and equipment for increased intensity
> ...



If you can find better stuff put together about lifting, please let me know because up until this point you repeatedly keep arguing with people and have not ONCE put anything up as far as articles that cite research or the research itself to support your opinion.  You keep on misquoting people or picking out a small statements and twisting it.  

Since you seem unable to read through the posts or put together any type of legitimate rebuttal other than your opinion in regards to the original topic.  I am not going to keep wasting my time.


----------



## jobo (Dec 6, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> Once again did NOT read the 2nd article I posted.  I never said that the article was the research.  I always stated that the article cited the research giving a person a summary of the research and a place to look at the research oneself if they chose to.
> 
> In the 2nd article, it is a textbook and here is a summary of the people who put it together.  If you had taken the time to read the quote I posted, you would see that it answered your disagreements.
> 
> ...


????? Your second link is,an ADD to buy a book, how do you a) expect to support your point and b) me to read it. When there is no actual information about anything.

in the bit you have selectively quoted, it says nothing about isometrics and even less about increasing un weighted speed. What do you think it says about these topics?


----------



## Finlay (Dec 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> your just making things up. You said, lifting heavy weight made you fast, you now changed that to explosive, " explosive" is fast movement . You are now saying that fast movement needs skill development. Ergo lifting heavy weights doesn't make you explosive. ? Perhaps you can clarify your position?




Sorry but that is not what is said.

In a previous post I said we could think of speed as explosiveness 

I then said heavy lifting, deadlifting for example builds explosiveness. Referring to the attribute

Then in a follow up post, while trying to explain my position. I said that the attribute built from heavy lifting needs to be applied to a skill.

I don' think I even said that all you need to punch fast is heavy lifting. My apologies if it read like that


----------



## jobo (Dec 6, 2017)

Finlay said:


> Yes exactly this. Heavy weights will increase speed.  .



this is exactly what you said, you didn't say it would only help build speed, or that additional training is required.

you said heavy weights WILL  increase speed, period


----------



## Finlay (Dec 6, 2017)

Yup OK


----------



## SOD-WC (Dec 7, 2017)

Plyometric vs. isometric training influences on tendon properties and muscle output. - PubMed - NCBI

its saying isometric exercise gives better tendon stiffness (im assuming that means strength). Does anyone know if pubmed is a good source of material or is it the same as doctor google? where everything u search for will result in ultimately death.


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 7, 2017)

SOD-WC said:


> Plyometric vs. isometric training influences on tendon properties and muscle output. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> its saying isometric exercise gives better tendon stiffness (im assuming that means strength). Does anyone know if pubmed is a good source of material or is it the same as doctor google? where everything u search for will result in ultimately death.


Everything results in death.  Why? Because everything has killed someone out there, as rare as it may be.


----------



## jobo (Dec 7, 2017)

SOD-WC said:


> Plyometric vs. isometric training influences on tendon properties and muscle output. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> its saying isometric exercise gives better tendon stiffness (im assuming that means strength). Does anyone know if pubmed is a good source of material or is it the same as doctor google? where everything u search for will result in ultimately death.


sort of, tendon stiffness transfers the strengh from the muscle to the joint, if the tendon stretches then some of that strengh is lost,if it has greater stiffness less is lost.

this topic has swooped of course to the question of if isometrics have more benefit than plyometric and the answer is maybe.
but, it depends what you mean by plylometric there are at least two accepted defintions out there and the study doesnt indecate if its one, the other or both its refering to.

isometrics were all the rage in the 50,60 and 70s. Then science said they didn't work and they were forgotten, now science seems to have rediscovered them.

all very interesting but not at all on the topic of if heavy lifting of a bench press results in a major increase in hand speed or not


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 9, 2017)

I've never used weights. Way to much risk of injury and causing permanent damage. Look what happened to bruce lee he suffered with severe back pain for the rest of his life.

What I've been lately to build my strength up for Jiu Jitsu is simply press ups but slow ones where I hold myself down for a few seconds before pushing myself back up and do about 10-15 at a time. It's only been about 2 weeks and already I feel stronger both just on the arms and on the mat.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Dec 9, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> I've never used weights. Way to much risk of injury and causing permanent damage. Look what happened to bruce lee he suffered with severe back pain for the rest of his life.
> 
> What I've been lately to build my strength up for Jiu Jitsu is simply press ups but slow ones where I hold myself down for a few seconds before pushing myself back up and do about 10-15 at a time. It's only been about 2 weeks and already I feel stronger both just on the arms and on the mat.



Believe me when I tell you that lifting weights (done properly) is infinitely safer than 90% of physical sports out there. Plus, lifting weights actually builds an injury-resistant body.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 9, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Believe me when I tell you that lifting weights (done properly) is infinitely safer than 90% of physical sports out there. Plus, lifting weights actually builds an injury-resistant body.


Well I've done well enough without them all my life so I'll be fine


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 10, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Believe me when I tell you that lifting weights (done properly) is infinitely safer than 90% of physical sports out there. Plus, lifting weights actually builds an injury-resistant body.


The "done properly" part is what's problematic. Most folks won't have a trainer handy to check their form on every exercise and stop them from exposing joints badly, etc.


----------



## Zombocalypse (Dec 11, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The "done properly" part is what's problematic. Most folks won't have a trainer handy to check their form on every exercise and stop them from exposing joints badly, etc.



Well, you have a point. I guess I am an exception to the rule because I have actual experience and solid knowledge on safe weight training.

But I do believe that it's not really that hard to figure out how to safely lift weights. Free information is all over the place. I'm sure I can pull up a Mark Rippetoe training video involving how to squat, deadlift, or bench properly.

I also would like to point out that there is a risk to everything we do. Anything that's worth achieving has a risk involved. Football and boxing are dangerous sports on their own right. There's a lot of injuries that can happen. I can recall a youtube footage of a football player celebrating a touchdown by jumping all over the place and ended up damaging his knee.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 11, 2017)

Zombocalypse said:


> Well, you have a point. I guess I am an exception to the rule because I have actual experience and solid knowledge on safe weight training.
> 
> But I do believe that it's not really that hard to figure out how to safely lift weights. Free information is all over the place. I'm sure I can pull up a Mark Rippetoe training video involving how to squat, deadlift, or bench properly.
> 
> I also would like to point out that there is a risk to everything we do. Anything that's worth achieving has a risk involved. Football and boxing are dangerous sports on their own right. There's a lot of injuries that can happen. I can recall a youtube footage of a football player celebrating a touchdown by jumping all over the place and ended up damaging his knee.


The issue isn't finding a source, it's evaluating your own form. Most people won't be capable of doing it properly. What stands out to an experienced and qualified trainer as a mistake might not look any different from good form when viewed by a novice.


----------



## Diagen (Jul 6, 2021)

I read Zombocalypse's original post and he is correct. Most people are bumper car drivers, not ralley or street racers -- catch my drift? Most sports are full of unmotivated or very few motivated people. It's like a hobby to them, no matter what they say. Like most things, it makes demands on the person not the other way around; and who the hell wants to listen to all those demands? Martial Artists have to be great athletes, and I'll add that they have to be great mental and sensory athletes as well. Mental and sensory exercises are a must, but people aren't paying that stuff too much attention or doing their own private thing. People are pretty lacking overall when you see the potential.


----------



## Diagen (Jul 15, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here are some interested ancient weight equipment training. It's easy to see that the purpose is to "enhance" MA skill and not just trying to build big muscle.


that ningzi video is A+. If they trained it more their waist would be killer, most big eastern kung fu movements create insane athleticism and strenght if you add weight, vigor, and repetition. Seriously what a set of movements.


----------



## Diagen (Jul 15, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many people train "push" and "pull". Not too many people train "twist".


The videos are gone but my thoughts exactly. Power lifters often tear something against arm wrestlers. Spiral bone breaks are a thing haha. Besides that much power loss is through loss of torque. I believe Jim Wendler or someone talked about that but he's a power lifter. Training twist is BIG. As a weight lifter taking a dumbbell and just twisting the weight in the hand and moving side to side and up and down with the load transfering up through the arm and scapula is big, that's wrist and forearm and upper arm and shoulder and traps and serratus and et cetera just keep time under tension and go to mental and physical failure for multiple sets. So it would be forearm parallel to ground but you twist and bend with the wrist, rotate the arm outward and inward, move the weight away from body and near it.
Besides that you got cable woodchoppers which is like chopping a tree down but there's a cable machine you're pulling from for horizontal resistance. Then of course the shovel lifts and asymmetrical deadlifts. There's the cossack squat which is BW but you can use DBs as well. Doing a 1 hand plank with hand under shoulder is asymmetrical and all asymmetrical exercises develop twist strength and builds up one's durability.
Throwing something is definitely very important. Twist, stretch-shortening, explosiveness.
There's a lot to physical prowess.


----------



## Diagen (Jul 15, 2021)

Seriously though that Ningzi might be the best exercise I can imagine. Wow. 👍


----------



## frank raud (Jul 16, 2021)

Diagen said:


> Seriously though that Ningzi might be the best exercise I can imagine. Wow. 👍


So, what makes it better than a Bulgarian bag, or doing halos with a kettlebell?


----------



## Diagen (Jul 16, 2021)

frank raud said:


> So, what makes it better than a Bulgarian bag, or doing halos with a kettlebell?


Well the weight is two grip and spread in the center, but with weight at the ends the leverage is much more difficult, so it depends on the weight used. From what I've seen and done though it looks like with slight variations it would be incredibly complete movements to exercise with. By opening up the torso and making the arms more vertical at the end-of-movement rather than horizontal you complete the set. It's a training stimulus you can't get normally for the waist and spine.
Think about holding the DBZ fusion pose with that weight in your hands. Now recognize that you're twisting and stopping a weight moving horizontally from a posture meant to stop a weight from moving down vertically. Can't get that normally.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 16, 2021)

Diagen said:


> The videos are gone .... Training twist is BIG.


This was the original videos.

2 hand twisting force is commonly used in wrestling.

https://i.postimg.cc/Kj2qxMJD/Gon-twist.gif

https://i.postimg.cc/4dbvvFQp/my-Gon-twist.gif


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jul 16, 2021)

I checked out the video on Ningzi and agree it's a great exercise.  As Kung Fu Wang said, twisting strength is not often practiced.  Yet, twisting movements are extensively used when you have hold of the opponent's torso or arm.

For the torso I use the pulley at the gym with the grip adjusted at waist height, my arms extended to one side (my body facing the machine) and twist my body (using a two handed grip like the classic pistol triangle position) 180 degrees away from the machine.  I also do this with the grips set to the top of the machine and twist down to my thigh.  The Okinawan kata _seiunchin_ (and possibly _naihanchi_, depending on interpretation of application) have torso twisting based techniques to move the opponent. Twisting strength in your body aids in many take-downs, especially when leg position (leverage) is not ideal.

Traditional Okinawan karate exercise (_hojo undoo_) includes holding what is essentially a sledge hammer with one arm extended to the front and the hammer perpendicular to the arm. The arm is rotated 180 degrees so the head of the hammer travels in an arc from side to side. This builds strength in the forearm for twisting the opponent's wrist to break his balance and/or position him for an elbow break or lock (_hikite/tuite_.)

As I get older (70 next week) I'm concentrating on exercises that more directly enhance my karate.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 16, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> For the torso I use the pulley ...


I like this pulley drill. But the gym pulley rope is not long enough. I have to build my own pulley.


----------



## Diagen (Jul 17, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> I checked out the video on Ningzi and agree it's a great exercise.  As Kung Fu Wang said, twisting strength is not often practiced.  Yet, twisting movements are extensively used when you have hold of the opponent's torso or arm.
> 
> For the torso I use the pulley at the gym with the grip adjusted at waist height, my arms extended to one side (my body facing the machine) and twist my body (using a two handed grip like the classic pistol triangle position) 180 degrees away from the machine.  I also do this with the grips set to the top of the machine and twist down to my thigh.  The Okinawan kata _seiunchin_ (and possibly _naihanchi_, depending on interpretation of application) have torso twisting based techniques to move the opponent. Twisting strength in your body aids in many take-downs, especially when leg position (leverage) is not ideal.
> 
> ...



That is great keep it up.


----------



## Diagen (Jul 17, 2021)

Diagen said:


> Well the weight is two grip and spread in the center, but with weight at the ends the leverage is much more difficult, so it depends on the weight used. From what I've seen and done though it looks like with slight variations it would be incredibly complete movements to exercise with. By opening up the torso and making the arms more vertical at the end-of-movement rather than horizontal you complete the set. It's a training stimulus you can't get normally for the waist and spine.
> Think about holding the DBZ fusion pose with that weight in your hands. Now recognize that you're twisting and stopping a weight moving horizontally from a posture meant to stop a weight from moving down vertically. Can't get that normally.


I should add it has a vertical component like an olympic barbell snatch, but seems like a Perfect compliment to the oly snatch. Snatch, Nangzi 3 Exercises, hanging ab raises (upside down hanging with tops of feet on bar), and the deep split lunge weight over front foot with DBs might be "the 6 not to miss".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like this pulley drill. But the gym pulley rope is not long enough. I have to build my own pulley.
> 
> View attachment 27032


At most gyms, the pulley cable has a carabiner clip at the end. You could make an extension to clip into that, and it might work. I've thought about just taking in a long webbing sling (nylon webbing tied in a loop) and clipping it in for this kind of thing.


----------



## RavenDarkfellow (Jul 17, 2021)

Zombocalypse said:


> A serious question to adept martial artists about physical fitness...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'd like to take a crack at actually answering your question.  I haven't read through the 15 pages of what I assume is mostly nonsense, since the thread managed to degenerate into bickering before the end of the first page-- but I have a serious answer for you which you may find insightful, or perhaps it will just seem like a re-hash of something someone else already said... regardless:

I think there are three fundamental reasons for this.

1 ) An "I already know enough about physicality" attitude.  Many martial artists who satisfy their own curiosity about what it takes to be a "real" martial artist decide they don't need to learn anything other than their *very specific* field or interest.  They may even become "Senior Grand Master" in their particular fighting style, but all of their information is limited to their own scope, and they believe that's enough.

2 ) Genuine lack of time.  A lot of martial artists become fully dedicated to their art and practise, and all of their free time spent learning more about anything has to do with learning martial arts specifically.  Humans have finite lives, and finite time in each day within those lives.  We have to pick and choose what elements to learn with that time.  You could spend your entire life learning everything there is to learn about martial arts, and even if you stayed fully within one "sphere" or paradigm of the arts, you could spend your life learning *just that* and die before you learned it all-- let alone branching out into other spheres.  So many, obsessed with the martial arts, hone in on just the spheres of technique and tradition, disregarding more natural/primal elements like common health and fitness.

3 ) Sales.  When it comes down to it, there are generally two types of schools: Those who are great at martial arts, and those who are great at recruiting.  Usually, it's not both, and if you find a school that is great at both, you've got a diamond in your hands.  This is why most good martial artists are poor with failing businesses.  They focus on their art, not on the skills required to proliferate it.  So when you see highly-proliferated information, it's usually from the *other* guys.  They're making click-bait.  Some of them believe their own hype.  Often they're just making statements that satisfy their egos while also psychologically directing people to what's in the marketer's best interests.  There can also be elements of points 1 & 2 above, mixed into this.


----------



## Diagen (Jul 19, 2021)

RavenDarkfellow said:


> I'd like to take a crack at actually answering your question.  I haven't read through the 15 pages of what I assume is mostly nonsense, since the thread managed to degenerate into bickering before the end of the first page-- but I have a serious answer for you which you may find insightful, or perhaps it will just seem like a re-hash of something someone else already said... regardless:
> 
> I think there are three fundamental reasons for this.
> 
> ...


Doing research is logical. That's all there is to it. No intelligent person can convince themself that research is a waste of time. You can put good knowledge in front of a person and they will throw it away -- the same people that say they don't have enough time are the people that think they know enough. They say they want to learn the million things their art can teach them but that's a lie they tell you to their face -- they want to do mechanical repetition until they die. They want a thin margin of growth that they barely eek out over their years and just break up their day with something that fills their mind with images and sensations other than that of their workplace and home.

It's an excuse everyone uses to cover their weaknesses. You know how you give the busiest co-worker something to do? They're already doing something so they get it done much quicker than the guy that's just sitting there doing nothing. Genuine lack of time is almost non-existent. Every hour can be worth another's 10 hours. I'm not going to give anyone the benefit of the doubt because everyone that gives themself the benefit of the doubt just stops progressing and somehow has only enough time to do what they're already doing.
If someone is working 12 hours a day 6 days a week you know that they are not in control of their life or they don't care about doing much else. Anyone can find some comfortable situation but the weaknesses of a person often keep them "trapped". Anyone can research homesteading for instance but who the hell will put up with living in nature? Haha. Basic comfort addictions will leave you trapped working some **** job in a **** place. "Who will tell me what to do next out in some field or forest? What will I do?" They are waiting for someone to tell them what to do instead of finding out for themselves. You just have to type it in to google in the modern age, and it's all basic subsistence stuff.

Simply lost priorities. If martial arts is last on the priority list then that's that. They are not martial artists. Give that title to those that deserve it. Mental weakness or bold face lying to your face (about their priorities and commitment) --  you can pick one or both. Everyone lies to you man, they lie to everyone. You lie too. "Magical thinking" is the rule not the exception.


----------



## Alan0354 (Jul 19, 2021)

Zombocalypse said:


> A serious question to adept martial artists about physical fitness...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not claiming as a master of MA, I put in a few years. The reason is because they are *IGNORANT*!!!

I was brought up in Hong Kong, I was told many times by the so called kung fu masters that muscle is in the way and slow you down. They glorified lean and trim as oppose to strength. They *TALK* as if "with the right technique, you don't need strength to do damage". They are more than happy to demo to you, telling you to put your hand grabbing him and how he use two fingers to make you to submission!!!.......That is if you grab him and hold him in static position and let him do whatever he want!!! The whole problem is not whether it's true. If you given the chance to position in the perfect way, yes, you don't need strength. BUT.......BUT......to get to that position, you most likely need strength to get to that position, all the tuck of war to get to that position. The other person is NOT going to stand still and let you take the time to get to the perfect position. That's when the strength comes in.

In UFC or Boxing, they have different weight categories, you think they do it for fun? You seriously think a 160lbs fighter can fight a 220lbs if they are both trained? Let say they both are same height and same reach. You seriously think the 160 have any chance to win over the 220? I bet the 160 won't last 1 minute unless he dance away from engaging.

I would say strength and technique are equally important. I just saw a women fight in Profession Fighting League fighting on tv. It's MMA style. A gold medalist Judo woman fight against a very well known MMA submission fighter. The odds of betting was like 15:1 the Judo one would lose. Guess what, the fight did not last a round and the Judo won. That Judo woman was buffed, you can clearly see the muscle even they are in the same weight category. The submission artist just cannot get into position to do her submission. The Judo flipped her around, pushed her away, threw the whole game plan off and won. I don't remember was it by ground and pound or submission. It was an easy won, was never even close.



Also there is a whole lot more about strength training. You damage your body from MA training, strength training in the right way help you heal your body and make you last longer. Notice the professional athletes are getting older and older now compare to like 30 years ago. The difference is they emphasis on weight training for recovery and the last longer and longer. It used to be like 30 or so and you retired, now you talking about up to the mid 40s.

I personally can attest to the weight training as I benefited tremendously from it. Between 1983 to 1986, I was training in Tae Kwon Do. I ruined my back from all the high kicks and for almost two years, I cannot even stand over 2 minutes without tingling feeling all the way down to my toes. I went to all different kinds of treatments short of operation. Finally one doctor in St. Mary's Spine Center ( hospital that operated on Joe Montana) suggested to go on a weight training regiment. It brought me back all the way. I am still doing weight training over 30 years after that. I still cannot do side kick, spin kick or round kick high, but I pretty much can train everything else. Weight training literally saved my life.

Almost half of my training is still on weights today. I added stick fighting with a cane lately, my body is screaming from the added exercise, it's the weight training that still keeping my body together.

A lot of MA are way behind time. Look at MMA, they do weight training. My wife goes to UFC gym ( for exercise and weights, not fighting). they have full set of weight training equipment. Don't think for a moment those fighters don't do weights. Look at their body, do they look thin and trim? Anyone say weight training is useless are absolute ignorant.


----------



## Diagen (Jul 20, 2021)

Alan0354 said:


> I am not claiming as a master of MA, I put in a few years. The reason is because they are *IGNORANT*!!!
> 
> I was brought up in Hong Kong, I was told many times by the so called kung fu masters that muscle is in the way and slow you down. They glorified lean and trim as oppose to strength. They *TALK* as if "with the right technique, you don't need strength to do damage". They are more than happy to demo to you, telling you to put your hand grabbing him and how he use two fingers to make you to submission!!!.......That is if you grab him and hold him in static position and let him do whatever he want!!! The whole problem is not whether it's true. If you given the chance to position in the perfect way, yes, you don't need strength. BUT.......BUT......to get to that position, you most likely need strength to get to that position, all the tuck of war to get to that position. The other person is NOT going to stand still and let you take the time to get to the perfect position. That's when the strength comes in.
> 
> ...



I agree mostly. Strength but basically general physical prowess is how you win. Reaction time and speed is improved with physical training but strength is a big one.
You should check out kneesovertoesguy he's a coach that has a youtube channel. He's helping college athletes and I think pros. Learned from the best as well he talks about anatomy and Olympic coaches and what they do. Well studied. He uses his own stuff and it works. He used to be stiff and slow but powerlifted, now he is still good in powerlifting but can play recreational basketball like a college pro, can dunk, sprint, everything. I'm not sure why his knees were busted but he had tears and surgery.
The exercises require strength but flexibility. Weights are used. They're unconventional sometimes. He talks about the training of a 50+ year old guy that still plays basketball and dunks. Basketball is big in the ankles and back, point being that the training works to get one to peak athleticism. Coach himself is over 40 and doing some pretty stellar stuff.


----------



## Alan0354 (Jul 20, 2021)

I agree, it's everything together. Strength, flexibility, speed, coordination....... They all play a role. I responded to the original post and I heard enough BS from those old fart kung fu "masters" and others in Hong Kong that muscle just get in the way and slow them down.

It's all about balance.


----------



## Alan0354 (Jul 20, 2021)

I came back a little too late to edit. I want to show, I do stretch even I don't do high kicks. It is important to have flexibility, it's a given. I am not flexible like the video you show, but I am still stretching every week. *Bare in mind I am 68 years old.*










I used to go to gym to lift weights, but since the shutdown, I improvise and do it at home and it works. This is my "bench press" doing pushup with 60lbs weighted jacket doing 20 reps. I do bicep curl with 40lbs dumbbell 10 reps each, body weight dips, squats with 60lbs jacket and 40lbs dumbbell in each hand to get 140lbs.






Weight training is almost half of my trainings.


----------



## Diagen (Jul 20, 2021)

Alan0354 said:


> I came back a little too late to edit. I want to show, I do stretch even I don't do high kicks. It is important to have flexibility, it's a given. I am not flexible like the video you show, but I am still stretching every week. *Bare in mind I am 68 years old.*
> View attachment 27039
> 
> 
> ...


Impressive stuff man. I admit you lift more than me by some.
You should definitely go through the kneesovertoesguy stuff though, flexible explosive athletic strength is like an instant boost to an old man's status and respect, and a boost to anyone's quality of life and martial ability. The loaded groin stretch is killing you, right? Haha me too. It's the one after the butterfly. Really difficult but I can feel all my connective tissue and bones in the pelvis a bit and it reminds me of an insect or something. Saw a diagram and it the level of interconnection and mass of webbing is insane.
My goal is BW on each of the 7 exercises for 100 reps, maybe 50% BW on the kneeling quad lift, 1.5x BW for 100 reps on the side lift one. Day 1 at 12.5 - 25% BW with every lift besides the kneeling quad extension. I'm not much in shape so a lot of room above you know what I mean. Sky is the limit.
Nordic curls, split squat, foot lift and sissy squat aren't integrated in my workout yet but he talks about them alot and I'll get them worked in. I would do sissy squats for my knees but didn't know their name haha the patella just feels better afterward.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2021)

Diagen said:


> flexible explosive athletic strength is like an instant boost to an old man's status and respect


?????


----------



## Diagen (Jul 21, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> ?????


It's true.


----------



## Alan0354 (Jul 21, 2021)

Diagen said:


> Impressive stuff man. I admit you lift more than me by some.
> You should definitely go through the kneesovertoesguy stuff though, flexible explosive athletic strength is like an instant boost to an old man's status and respect, and a boost to anyone's quality of life and martial ability. The loaded groin stretch is killing you, right? Haha me too. It's the one after the butterfly. Really difficult but I can feel all my connective tissue and bones in the pelvis a bit and it reminds me of an insect or something. Saw a diagram and it the level of interconnection and mass of webbing is insane.
> My goal is BW on each of the 7 exercises for 100 reps, maybe 50% BW on the kneeling quad lift, 1.5x BW for 100 reps on the side lift one. Day 1 at 12.5 - 25% BW with every lift besides the kneeling quad extension. I'm not much in shape so a lot of room above you know what I mean. Sky is the limit.
> Nordic curls, split squat, foot lift and sissy squat aren't integrated in my workout yet but he talks about them alot and I'll get them worked in. I would do sissy squats for my knees but didn't know their name haha the patella just feels better afterward.


Thanks

I think I have enough exercise. I am not trying to excel in anything. I am not an expert in MA, I put in 3 years in the 80s. I had to quit because of my back, but I hung a heavy bag and work out regularly at home since, never stop. Been doing weights since. Lately, I added stick fighting with cane since all the attacks on older Asians. I am exercising like 7hrs/wk. It's a lot on my plate, I don't want to add any more. In fact, when I get better on the cane, I would want to cut down a little. As is now, it's over an hour 5 days a week, between rest in between, showers and all, it's like the whole morning every week days already. It's tiring also, I do NOT work out like a senior, I do push.

I am too old to try to excel and impress people, this is more about survival to me. I want to have balanced workout, not just MA. Weight training is very important for old people to keep their bones strong to avoid breaking bones if fall. A little flexibility will make it easy to move around. I am more training for quality of life than to be good in anything.

I learn a few months of Judo when I was young, learning how to break the fall. Once a week, I even try to fall on the concrete floor and practice breaking the fall a few times to remember how to break fall if I tripped. It's all about quality of life for me.

Ha ha, I practice deep body weight squat everyday after shower to squeegy the glass door door. I squat down all the way to scrape the door like 6 or 7 times. Don't laugh, this is NOT easy for seniors, their joints get stiff. At the beginning, I even had a little trouble even though I exercise.

Ha ha, that I can show off to the old people!!! I can squat down all the way cold!!!


----------



## Diagen (Jul 21, 2021)

Alan0354 said:


> Thanks
> 
> I think I have enough exercise. I am not trying to excel in anything. I am not an expert in MA, I put in 3 years in the 80s. I had to quit because of my back, but I hung a heavy bag and work out regularly at home since, never stop. Been doing weights since. Lately, I added stick fighting with cane since all the attacks on older Asians. I am exercising like 7hrs/wk. It's a lot on my plate, I don't want to add any more. In fact, when I get better on the cane, I would want to cut down a little. As is now, it's over an hour 5 days a week, between rest in between, showers and all, it's like the whole morning every week days already. It's tiring also, I do NOT work out like a senior, I do push.
> 
> ...


haha well done man.


----------



## angelariz (Aug 15, 2021)

Zombocalypse said:


> I know that. But it doesn't change the fact that lots of martial artists are ignorant with training for physical fitness. A good example is Buakaw and his camp. Instead of doing beneficial barbell squats, he replaces them with machine squats. And his stupid-*** trainers made him do planks, which is as useful as a bikini in the winter time.


Buakaw is a beast. His training method is obviously world class. Not many men can train and compete at such a high level as him. 
People dont have to back squat to be great fighters.


----------

