# "Speed" in Japanese and/or Okinawan karate



## Gaucho (Jul 8, 2019)

Speed is always important, but are there some styles which really focus on developing speed in strikes more than other styles do?
Thank you.


----------



## Buka (Jul 9, 2019)

I think that depends more on the school and the people teaching than on the style. I was friendly with a lot of folks who ran dojos over the years. Some schools trained differently from others of the same style, some of whom came from the exact same lineage.

We did a lot of speed exercises, a lot of fast twitch work, but a lot of strength work as well.

We also did a lot of work on how to beat superior speed. With superior timing.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jul 9, 2019)

There are some styles that stress speed as part of their design:  escrima & silat, American kenpo, and some Okinawan styles, come to mind.  Economy of motion, timing, balance, muscle tension, and hand position in kumai/guard all affect speed.  These factors involve relative speed - may not travel as fast, but get there soonest (which is what really counts.)  Then there is raw speed - how fast the practitioner's weapon can travel thru space.  Physical ability, reaction time and, I believe, one's mental/spiritual bearing contribute to this.  So, style, raw and relative speed all combine into this question of speed.  And, as always, it takes an instructor to pass these concepts on to their students.


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 9, 2019)

Speed is excellent, when used in the right context, unfortunately speed can make some people delusional. See what I mean in the following FB link

A Idz Pan W Cholere


----------



## Buka (Jul 9, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> There are some styles that stress speed as part of their design:  escrima & silat, American kenpo, and some Okinawan styles, come to mind.  Economy of motion, timing, balance, muscle tension, and hand position in kumai/guard all affect speed.  These factors involve relative speed - may not travel as fast, but get there soonest (which is what really counts.)  Then there is raw speed - how fast the practitioner's weapon can travel thru space.  Physical ability, reaction time and, I believe, one's mental/spiritual bearing contribute to this.  So, style, raw and relative speed all combine into this question of speed.  And, as always, it takes an instructor to pass these concepts on to their students.



I agree with you. But I think that all striking arts teach that. I'm talking more about drills to actually improve speed. One's actual speed can be improved if worked on properly. What one does with improved speed is something else entirely.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 10, 2019)

It's all about what type of muscle fiber you are building.

To build speed in striking it's about adding fast twitch muscle fiber.


----------



## Buka (Jul 10, 2019)

I'm so fast I can steal your radio and leave the music.


----------



## jobo (Jul 10, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> It's all about what type of muscle fiber you are building.
> 
> To build speed in striking it's about adding fast twitch muscle fiber.


You can't add muscle fibres at all? ,Your rather stuck with what God gave you,  you can convert type two to type two A, , that's faster , slow twitch fibres  or slow fast twitch , one of them

But speed , as opposed to power , us more governed by the. Co ordination of nervous system Han which fibres your using,


----------



## Christopher Adamchek (Jul 10, 2019)

Speed is fun,  i focus more on teaching timing


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 10, 2019)

jobo said:


> You can't add muscle fibres at all? ,Your rather stuck with what God gave you,  you can convert type two to type two A, , that's faster , slow twitch fibres  or slow fast twitch , one of them
> 
> But speed , as opposed to power , us more governed by the. Co ordination of nervous system Han which fibres your using,


I think the common confusion about adding muscle fibers is because the cells can actually add new myfibrils during hypertrophy. If that's what they refer to by "fibers", then they're right. If they mean "cells", I think you're correct.

As for changing type, there seems to still be argument about that. There are studies going all the way back to the 1960's that purport to show slow-twitch muscle converting to fast-twitch and back. Apparently, we (maybe) all have some amount of "hybrid" cells that can change rapidly in response to the demands of a given course of activity. They're more common in sedentary people, far less common in elite athletes (to the point that they may have no hybrid cells). My best read of what I've seen is that these hybrid cells are what shifts around, so we can change our FT% by recruiting these hybrid cells to fast-twitch/superfast-twitch.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 10, 2019)

A very interesting article about muscle fiber types and changing them. I read it a few weeks ago and meant to post it, but I forgot. This seems like a great time and place...
Inside the Cal State Fullerton Muscle Cell Laboratory Research


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2019)

Slow is smooth. Smooth is fast.

Not everyone can have speed, but nearly everyone can have good technique. Not everyone can have strength, but nearly everyone can have technique.

Good technique can beat speed and strength. It's great if you can have all three, but if you cant, focus on technique. Age and infirmity will take this from you last.


----------



## jobo (Jul 11, 2019)

.


Bill Mattocks said:


> Slow is smooth. Smooth is fast.
> 
> Not everyone can have speed, but nearly everyone can have good technique. Not everyone can have strength, but nearly everyone can have technique.
> 
> Good technique can beat speed and strength. It's great if you can have all three, but if you cant, focus on technique. Age and infirmity will take this from you last.


well sort of, id postulate, thatgood technique is co coordination, an so to a large part are strength ( power) and speed.   but of the three, allowing you trained them all, strength is the last to go

at 60 I'm stronger than I've ever been, unfortunately, despite no end if effort, i can't recapturethe speed or co ordination that i had in my 20s, but then i was heavily blessed with both,


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 11, 2019)

Speed, strength, and technique are great and all, but IMO something trumps them all: vision (for lack of a better word, and not from an acuity sense). If you can see things unfold early, you can react early. Ever spar with one of those people who seemed to know what you were going to do before you knew what you were going to do? That’s what I mean by having great vision. I hate sparring with those guys. And I love sparring with those guys. Everything I throw gets countered by those guys before I’m done throwing it. There’s a woman at my dojo who’s one of the best fighters I’ve ever been around. She’s not very fast, to say the least. But she sees the kick or punch coming and the opening its left and my punch is deflected and I’m hit 2-3 times before I’ve followed through with the initial punch. She doesn’t hit me like that because of hand speed. It’s her “vision.” Someone who’s got average speed and power is going to hurt you if they see the fight right. 

All IMO.


----------



## Gaucho (Jul 12, 2019)

JR 137 describes an interesting phenomenon, which is a matter of eye>to>brain coordination, brain speed, and sometimes brain>to>body speed on the way back out.  I know a martial artist like that, and he just functions on a different time frame, so to speak.  He has trained a lot, but he has natural ability as well, as have most (or all) top athletes. I sparred with him, and when I threw a punch at him, he turned a little bit and slapped me across the head with a side kick before my punch got to him.  I may as well have been fighting Superman.

Wayne Gretzky has that, which allowed him to figure out what was happening and what was going to happen before the other hockey players did.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 12, 2019)

Gaucho said:


> JR 137 describes an interesting phenomenon, which is a matter of eye>to>brain coordination, brain speed, and sometimes brain>to>body speed on the way back out.  I know a martial artist like that, and he just functions on a different time frame, so to speak.  He has trained a lot, but he has natural ability as well, as have most (or all) top athletes. I sparred with him, and when I threw a punch at him, he turned a little bit and slapped me across the head with a side kick before my punch got to him.  I may as well have been fighting Superman.
> 
> Wayne Gretzky has that, which allowed him to figure out what was happening and what was going to happen before the other hockey players did.


Gretzky is a great example. He wasn’t the fastest, strongest, and most purely physically gifted hockey player. He saw the game unfold and always put himself in the right place at the right time. That’s that vision I’m talking about.

Michael Jordan is my default example. Like Gretzky, he wasn’t the fastest and most physically gifted guy. He was above average, but there were plenty of better athletes when he played. But he always seemed to be a step ahead of everyone else. Everyone remembers those spectacular dunks and jump shots where he shook off two guys right in front of him. He did that by seeing what was going on and taking advantage of every little opening he was given. It was like he had ESP and knew what was going to happen before it actually happened. 

I think that’s what truly separates the elite from the rest. They see what’s going on and somehow consistently anticipate things right. They’re seeing the tells, cues, etc. and reacting. If you know exactly what’s coming and where, it makes getting into the right place and countering a hell of a lot easier.

I’m not saying I’ve sparred with MAists on Jordan and Gretzky’s level. Not even close. But the people I have in mind that I have sparred with have that trait of being able to easily read what I’m doing and take full advantage. And they’re not particularly gifted with purely physical attributes. And they didn’t sit there and study my movement before they sparred me. 

I wish I had that ability. I keep trying


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2019)

That 'vision' thing could be technique. It can be learned and practiced. The first thing I've noticed about those guys is they're not looking me in the eyes...


----------



## jobo (Jul 12, 2019)

technique


Bill Mattocks said:


> That 'vision' thing could be technique. It can be learned and practiced. The first thing I've noticed about those guys is they're not looking me in the eyes...


yes it is a technique, but a cerebral one, its modeling the " world" and using that model to make predictions, its what we do all the time when driving, or should.advance driving course will focus very much on building that skill by doing a running commentary of what you see and what you predict may happen. " pedestrian staring at his phone, fairly good chance he will step out with out looking" etc

even if you are making multiple predictions, out comes of increasing likelihood, the fact that the eventually when it occurs has been already considered and your response to some level predetermined means your reaction speed seems greatly increased, in advance examples as given above to the point you appear superhuman


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 12, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That 'vision' thing could be technique. It can be learned and practiced. The first thing I've noticed about those guys is they're not looking me in the eyes...


Much of it is likely an unconscious pattern recognition, paired with an unusual level of trust in that process’s result.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Much of it is likely an unconscious pattern recognition, paired with an unusual level of trust in that process’s result.



Trust is built based on results, positive and negative.

I've had people say I'm fast when I spar. I'm not. I'm actually quite slow. And most of the fast people in my dojo are much too fast for me. Usually I don't need to be fast, I'm prepared.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 12, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That 'vision' thing could be technique. It can be learned and practiced. The first thing I've noticed about those guys is they're not looking me in the eyes...


I think part of it is technique - them not giving you many options and forcing you to choose from very few things.

Part of it is purely experience - having seen things many times over and know what’s likely to come.

But there’s also something that’s, I guess, instinctual? It can really be taught. In wrestling we called it “mat sense.” There are people who see things and just flat out “get it.” Not just in MA and sports, but in every field. Some people look at an instrument and get it. Some look at math and it just makes sense. Some look at fields of science, machinery, literature, et al and it just makes sense to them. Sure they’ve got to work at it and hone their skill/craft, but they excel where others who’ve put in the same work reach a certain level and stagnate, so to speak. I’m not talking about physical talent where people are above others, but the others can catch up by working harder; I’m talking about someone who just truly knows their craft. 

The woman I spoke of in a previous post is well over 300 lbs. she’s strong as an ox, but she’s not fast nor mobile. I throw a punch, and I’m easily tagged 3 times before I’m done with my punch. And she’ll be just out of range, and I’ll be in a defenseless position. And she barely moved. And I’ve got pretty quick hands. It’s a great thing that she doesn’t put her power into it when she hit, because I’d easily be doubled over by a combination of where she hit me, how many times she hit me, and her shear power. I’ve seen her hit someone who got carried away; trust me it wasn’t good. And it could’ve been so much worse.

I see her sparring with other people, so I know it’s not that I’m bad and think she’s better than she really is. She’s the type of person that could do pretty much whatever she wants at any point. I’ve seen those people in every sport. Those people that are just on another level and can seemingly do whatever they want whenever they want to. I coached a wrestler a few years back like that. Up until the state semifinals, there was never a point in any match that he wasn’t in full control of what was going on. He was a pretty good athlete, but from a strength and athleticism standpoint he had no business beating quite a few people he easily disposed of. He had that vision. He was always a step ahead of the opponent. I don’t know how else to put it into words.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 12, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Trust is built based on results, positive and negative.
> 
> I've had people say I'm fast when I spar. I'm not. I'm actually quite slow. And most of the fast people in my dojo are much too fast for me. Usually I don't need to be fast, I'm prepared.


Agreed. I do think some folks, however, trust that process more than most of us would, and that trust makes their reaction a bit faster. That, of course, validates the trust and continues the cycle.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 25, 2019)

I was at the Basketball Hall of Fame today, and Muggsy Bogues was there. He had a sit-down interview with a guy in front of the audience. At the end, some kids were chosen at random to ask 1 question each.

One of the kids, about 10 years old, asked the best question:
“You were one of the best passers ever in the NBA. What drills can I do to be a better passer?”

And a lot of people probably didn’t like the answer, as it probably wasn’t what they thought he was going to say:
“Being a great passer isn’t really about any specific drills. It’s about seeing things before they happen. It’s about seeing where your teammates are going to go, and seeing what the defense is going to do before they do it.” He went on a little more, but it was reinforcing his point. 

And that’s what I was trying to say about being “fast” as a MAist. Having fast hands and feet is great and all, but seeing what’s going to happen before it actually happens is going to make you that elite fighter. Getting to the right spot at the right time to avoid getting hit and being able to hit is pretty easy if you know exactly what’s going to come at you before it actually does.

For those of you that don’t know Muggsy Bogues, he was (and possibly still is) the NBA all-time assist to turnover ratio leader. He played 13 seasons in the NBA as a point guard and had a great career, mostly with the Charlotte Hornets. And on paper, he had no business playing in the NBA - he was listed at 5’3” and 135 lbs. Easily one of my favorite guys to watch play.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 26, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Speed, strength, and technique are great and all, but IMO something trumps them all: vision (for lack of a better word, and not from an acuity sense). If you can see things unfold early, you can react early. Ever spar with one of those people who seemed to know what you were going to do before you knew what you were going to do? That’s what I mean by having great vision. I hate sparring with those guys. And I love sparring with those guys. Everything I throw gets countered by those guys before I’m done throwing it. There’s a woman at my dojo who’s one of the best fighters I’ve ever been around. She’s not very fast, to say the least. But she sees the kick or punch coming and the opening its left and my punch is deflected and I’m hit 2-3 times before I’ve followed through with the initial punch. She doesn’t hit me like that because of hand speed. It’s her “vision.” Someone who’s got average speed and power is going to hurt you if they see the fight right.
> 
> All IMO.


Vision is great and a excellent asset...However, there comes a time when even with great vision one may no longer have the attributes of explosiveness, acceleration, and speed to get there before the opponent does. I'm running into this almost daily now. Age & injuries have reduced many attributes my younger self had. I see the movement and know where they are going, what is being thrown, what angle it's coming from. I instinctively know where I need to be and what to counter with however often now I'm simple too slow getting there. It's not a timing thing, it's a you've gotten old and slow thing.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 26, 2019)

Danny T said:


> Vision is great and a excellent asset...However, there comes a time when even with great vision one may no longer have the attributes of explosiveness, acceleration, and speed to get there before the opponent does. I'm running into this almost daily now. Age & injuries have reduced many attributes my younger self had. I see the movement and know where they are going, what is being thrown, what angle it's coming from. I instinctively know where I need to be and what to counter with however often now I'm simple too slow getting there. It's not a timing thing, it's a you've gotten old and slow thing.


I’d “like” your post, but would that imply that I like the fact you’ve gotten older and slower? 

I completely understand what you’re saying and completely agree. If you’re too deficient in any one area, nothing is going to make up for it.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 26, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I’d “like” your post, but would that imply that I like the fact you’ve gotten older and slower?
> 
> I completely understand what you’re saying and completely agree. If you’re too deficient in any one area, nothing is going to make up for it.


And It Sucks!


----------



## jobo (Jul 26, 2019)

Danny T said:


> Vision is great and a excellent asset...However, there comes a time when even with great vision one may no longer have the attributes of explosiveness, acceleration, and speed to get there before the opponent does. I'm running into this almost daily now. Age & injuries have reduced many attributes my younger self had. I see the movement and know where they are going, what is being thrown, what angle it's coming from. I instinctively know where I need to be and what to counter with however often now I'm simple too slow getting there. It's not a timing thing, it's a you've gotten old and slow thing.


iv faced the old age thing, and whilst a fall off is inescapable, how much of a fall off is inevitable is much open to debate, my solution to it is to train harder than my younger self did , with emphasis on the speed of movement and reactions, which my younger self didn't have to worry about,which so far has limited it somewhat


----------



## Buka (Jul 26, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Michael Jordan is my default example. Like Gretzky, he wasn’t the fastest and most physically gifted guy. He was above average, but there were plenty of better athletes when he played. But he always seemed to be a step ahead of everyone else. Everyone remembers those spectacular dunks and jump shots where he shook off two guys right in front of him. He did that by seeing what was going on and taking advantage of every little opening he was given. It was like he had ESP and knew what was going to happen before it actually happened.
> 
> I think that’s what truly separates the elite from the rest. They see what’s going on and somehow consistently anticipate things right. They’re seeing the tells, cues, etc. and reacting. If you know exactly what’s coming and where, it makes getting into the right place and countering a hell of a lot easier.
> 
> ...



I think an ever better example is Larry Bird. Slowest running guy of his era, had a vertical leap of about an inch and a half. Yet, a fricken' assassin of epic proportions.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 26, 2019)

Buka said:


> I think an ever better example is Larry Bird. Slowest running guy of his era, had a vertical leap of about an inch and a half. Yet, a fricken' assassin of epic proportions.


Kevin McHale wasn’t exactly a physical specimen by any means, too. Talk about an awkward guy. But one hell of a big man.


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 26, 2019)

jobo said:


> iv faced the old age thing, and whilst a fall off is inescapable, how much of a fall off is inevitable is much open to debate, my solution to it is to train harder than my younger self did , with emphasis on the speed of movement and reactions, which my younger self didn't have to worry about,which so far has limited it somewhat



There is a time when working harder was the key, but when you reach a certain age, it's about working smarter, understanding you strengths, this is when philosophy and biomechanics are key


----------



## jobo (Jul 26, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> There is a time when working harder was the key, but when you reach a certain age, it's about working smarter, understanding you strengths, this is when philosophy and biomechanics are key


well my philosophy ? is, unless you are extremely ( Olympics)fit, you can be fitter, that takes hard work no matter what age you are, the trick with fitness in " middl age" is to gain fitness faster than you are loosing it, which takes harder work  the main problem with doing that is you think like an old man, so you act and train like an old man, so you are an " old man" with the results you get

my contempories consider me a genetic freak as they try a ( very ) few pull ups and I spin round and round the bar,and finish with a back lever its purely application that makes the difference, I'm out doing that in the rain when there in the warm watching telly


or to sum it up. at any age, if you want to be athletic, train like an athelete


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 26, 2019)

Yes I am sure you are a genetic freak, but I am not talking about putting the warm telly watchers in their place, I am talking about making yourself the best you can be now, forgetting core strength, that is a given at middle age or any age, what I am talking about, is tailoring your fitness ragime to your capabilities. I am not talking about, if you are physically incapable of performing a roundhouse, followed by a turning back kick, followed by a low spinning back kick, you should keep trying at 50 years old, but to adapt your training to to what you are capable of


----------



## Buka (Jul 26, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Kevin McHale wasn’t exactly a physical specimen by any means, too. Talk about an awkward guy. But one hell of a big man.



Two of the best. And if you haven't seen this....it's pretty cool. The whole interview is much longer.






I love both those guys, went to a lot of games to watch them. My buddy owned a sports bar across from the old Boston Garden. I tended bar at lunch times to support my Martial habit. Used to go watch early practices because I knew a lot of people at the garden.




 
But you know....as good as Bird, McHale, Jordan, Labron or any other player was, none could hold a candle to Bill Russell. He was better than all of them.


----------



## jobo (Jul 26, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Yes I am sure you are a genetic freak, but I am not talking about putting the warm telly watchers in their place, I am talking about making yourself the best you can be now, forgetting core strength, that is a given at middle age or any age, what I am talking about, is tailoring your fitness ragime to your capabilities. I am not talking about, if you are physically incapable of performing a roundhouse, followed by a turning back kick, followed by a low spinning back kick, you should keep trying at 50 years old, but to adapt your training to to what you are capable of


but what your capable of is  determined by your training or lack of it .as soon as you decided the upper limits of what you can achieve and scale the training to suit, then you've limited your own level, you will clearly never go above it. because your not training hard enough.

this is just nearly every middle-aged man making excuses, excuses that have nothing to do with what therebody is capable of and everything to do with have an old man's state of mind


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2019)

jobo said:


> but what your capable of is  determined by your training or lack of it .as soon as you decided the upper limits of what you can achieve and scale the training to suit, then you've limited your own level, you will clearly never go above it. because your not training hard enough.
> 
> this is just nearly every middle-aged man making excuses, excuses that have nothing to do with what therebody is capable of and everything to do with have an old man's state of mind


In some cases, they know some actual limits, because of what causes pain and injury when they do it. In other cases, they are (as you say) stopping themselves short because of what they believe they can't do.


----------



## jobo (Jul 26, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> In some cases, they know some actual limits, because of what causes pain and injury when they do it. In other cases, they are (as you say) stopping themselves short because of what they believe they can't do.


I don't really want another discussion about your knees, but yes,  people of all ages are limited, its rather if you've actually reach that limit.

the fall of performance between elite level athletes, in there 20s and those in there 50/ 60 is about 25%, which is a lot of your racing one, but opens up a world of possibility for 50 to on what can be achieved


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 26, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Speed is excellent, when used in the right context, unfortunately speed can make some people delusional. See what I mean in the following FB link
> 
> A Idz Pan W Cholere


I believe that was more awareness and timing. The showboat never saw the punch coming.


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 26, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That 'vision' thing could be technique. It can be learned and practiced. The first thing I've noticed about those guys is they're not looking me in the eyes...


Agree, but like Jordan, a lot of it is God given. It cannot be learned. It can be refined.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 26, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Agree, but like Jordan, a lot of it is God given. It cannot be learned. It can be refined.



You can't change your genetics.  You can hone what you do have.  I refuse to give an inch to others because they have gifts I do not, so I shouldn't try anymore.  On the contrary, I will try harder.


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 26, 2019)

Agree. Part of what drove me when I was competing was knowing there were others who were faster, quicker, stronger than me. It took time but most were not better at the chess match than me.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 26, 2019)

Buka said:


> Two of the best. And if you haven't seen this....it's pretty cool. The whole interview is much longer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He was before my time. But no matter what anyone says about someone being better than Bill Russell, there’s one argument that shuts everyone up instantly - Russell has more rings than fingers.

But I’m surprised no one has used my comeback - Robert Horry has more rings than MJ, but no one’ll argue which one was better.

And I loved watching “Big Shot Bob” play. No one had any clue what team he was on until someone needed a game-winning shot in the playoffs. Then everyone knew immediately. I don’t remember seeing anyone hit more playoff game-winning buzzer beaters than Horry. And he looked like Will Smith’s estranged twin, so it was even better


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> but what your capable of is  determined by your training or lack of it .as soon as you decided the upper limits of what you can achieve and scale the training to suit, then you've limited your own level, you will clearly never go above it. because your not training hard enough.
> 
> this is just nearly every middle-aged man making excuses, excuses that have nothing to do with what therebody is capable of and everything to do with have an old man's state of mind


Let me put it in a language you might understand, I am not talking about taking it easy, core strength and fitness is harder to maintain the older you get, so yes you have to work at it, the older you get, all I was stating, is, sometimes you have to work smarter, as we get older we can get health issues, that can be completely unrelated to sports and fitness, which may impair our ability to perform a range of movements, for arguments sake, a accident in a vehicle, so we have to find away around the problems, we have to train smarter. It is a fact of life, that as we get older, we cannot do some of the things we used to do, yes I know you say you can, because your a freak of nature. I train hard every day, but not as hard as I did when I was 19, not because I am a middle age man with excuses, but because I would not use some of the things I used to do, for example when I was 19, I would rattle off 100 push ups in under a couple of minutes, now I would rather do 60 good ones, with correct posture, there will come a time when you cannot work any harder, or you will injure yourself. Like I said earlier, sometimes it's better to work smarter, than harder.


----------



## jobo (Jul 27, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Let me put it in a language you might understand, I am not talking about taking it easy, core strength and fitness is harder to maintain the older you get, so yes you have to work at it, the older you get, all I was stating, is, sometimes you have to work smarter, as we get older we can get health issues, that can be completely unrelated to sports and fitness, which may impair our ability to perform a range of movements, for arguments sake, a accident in a vehicle, so we have to find away around the problems, we have to train smarter. It is a fact of life, that as we get older, we cannot do some of the things we used to do, yes I know you say you can, because your a freak of nature. I train hard every day, but not as hard as I did when I was 19, not because I am a middle age man with excuses, but because I would not use some of the things I used to do, for example when I was 19, I would rattle off 100 push ups in under a couple of minutes, now I would rather do 60 good ones, with correct posture, there will come a time when you cannot work any harder, or you will injure yourself. Like I said earlier, sometimes it's better to work smarter, than harder.


I understand the words, they are just not making any sense, if what ever you are doing it making you fitter than you were last month, then its " smart" if it's not, , it isn't smart its " lazy"

studies have show that a 50 yo can be as fit as there 20 yo, self as long as they train harder than there 20 yo self did,  ( if you trained so hard when you were 20 that you can't replicate it now, then you can't, but that is only a very small % of the population)if you have car crash injuries that stop you doing a certain exercise, then do another exercise instead. if you can do 60 push ups, then there is little doubt you can increase that over time to 90 or at least 70 or 80, you just have to try harder than when you rattled them off with little effort.

your body has exactly the same mechanisms that improve fitness now as it ever did, it just takes longer to get from point a) to point b) and you may never reach point c

I'm doing a exercise program designed for  fit college students, its taken me 5 months to make the same progresion as the program says can be done in two, but I've made the progression just the same, so in a broad sense my fitness is comparable now with that of a fit 20 yo. though not a extremely fit 20 yo, that's next year


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> I understand the words, they are just not making any sense, if what ever you are doing it making you fitter than you were last month, then its " smart" if it's not, , it isn't smart its " lazy"
> 
> studies have show that a 50 yo can be as fit as there 20 yo, self as long as they train harder than there 20 yo self did,  ( if you trained so hard when you were 20 that you can't replicate it now, then you can't, but that is only a very small % of the population)if you have car crash injuries that stop you doing a certain exercise, then do another exercise instead. if you can do 60 push ups, then there is little doubt you can increase that over time to 90 or at least 70 or 80, you just have to try harder than when you rattled them off with little effort.
> 
> ...


There's some evidence that after some point (I can't recall if the research included a guess at what point) we may not be able to develop muscle to a significant extent unless we developed significant muscle in that area earlier in life. That suggests our 20 YO self (or whatever our most fit age was) may be a ceiling on what we can achieve in some areas.


----------



## jobo (Jul 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> There's some evidence that after some point (I can't recall if the research included a guess at what point) we may not be able to develop muscle to a significant extent unless we developed significant muscle in that area earlier in life. That suggests our 20 YO self (or whatever our most fit age was) may be a ceiling on what we can achieve in some areas.


err, it's easier to develop muscle if the nuclei are there, but I don't think they last thirty years  ? and there's no reason why you can develop new ones,but , , ,  one, I have much more muscle now than I did in my 20s, because I train properly now instead of using bro science that some guy at the gym with big muscles told me ( thank you internet)and two, muscle size isn't really a defining factor in most elements of fitness, not even strength to a large part ? bigger muscle are a side effect of training strength not the cause


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> err, it's easier to develop muscle if the nuclei are there, but I don't think they last thirty years  ? and there's no reason why you can develop new ones,but , , ,  one, I have much more muscle now than I did in my 20s, because I train properly now instead of using bro science that some guy at the gym with big muscles told me ( thank you internet)and two, muscle size isn't really a defining factor in most elements of fitness, not even strength to a large part ? bigger muscle are a side effect of training strength not the cause


I didn't say anything about muscle size, actually. But, yeah, the evidence I saw wasn't conclusive. It may be that the "ceiling" isn't where we were, but is related to that point. I think the research only looked at muscle development, so might not translate to overall fitness.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 9, 2019)

I think speed is developed through several different aspects of training. Yes, punching speed and kicking speed are obvious examples, but footwork, timing, distance, alignment and movement, are in my opinion valid variables. 

I sure someone has already mention these points, but these are some of the things I associate with developing speed.


----------



## jobo (Aug 10, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I didn't say anything about muscle size, actually. But, yeah, the evidence I saw wasn't conclusive. It may be that the "ceiling" isn't where we were, but is related to that point. I think the research only looked at muscle development, so might not translate to overall fitness.


but that then really requires you to state what you mean by muscle development, any development of the muscle, as opposed to the ns,involve,  a increase in the effective ( volume)size of the muscle, so you need to clearly define what your referring to


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2019)

jobo said:


> but that then really requires you to state what you mean by muscle development, any development of the muscle, as opposed to the ns,involve,  a increase in the effective ( volume)size of the muscle, so you need to clearly define what your referring to


As I recall, it was relative to strength.


----------



## jobo (Aug 10, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> As I recall, it was relative to strength.


but strength is t?o a large part dependent on the ns, so yes and no, developing the muscle will only have a marginal effect on strength if it's done in issolation to developing the ns

if the study you cant quite remember, says that you cant increase strength beyond the capacity you had at 20, that clearly wrong, if it says you cant increase muscle volum beyond that you had at 20 that's wrong as well, therefore if it says you can do both if you train both then thats incorrect, !

it's common in the normal course of human development for both to increase naturally, with out any specific training well beyond your 20 the birthday


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2019)

jobo said:


> but strength is t?o a large part dependent on the ns, so yes and no, developing the muscle will only have a marginal effect on strength if it's done in issolation to developing the ns
> 
> if the study you cant quite remember, says that you cant increase strength beyond the capacity you had at 20, that clearly wrong, if it says you cant increase muscle volum beyond that you had at 20 that's wrong as well, therefore if it says you can do both if you train both then thats incorrect, !
> 
> it's common in the normal course of human development for both to increase naturally, with out any specific training well beyond your 20 the birthday


Reread my posts. You’re arguing a straw man again. I never said it concluded you were limited to the strength or development at 20.


----------



## jobo (Aug 10, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> There's some evidence that after some point (I can't recall if the research included a guess at what point) we may not be able to develop muscle to a significant extent unless we developed significant muscle in that area earlier in life. That suggests our 20 YO self (or whatever our most fit age was) may be a ceiling on what we can achieve in some areas.


??? that seems clearly what you said the evidence concluded, or at least what you clearly said you suggest it concluded,

though it's conclusion and your suggestion of its conclusion may not be the same thing, your suggestion is all I have to consider   this point ,so you need to be clear which is the evidence and which is just your conclusion with out evidence, as you seem to be blurring the two


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2019)

jobo said:


> ??? that seems clearly what you said the evidence concluded, or at least what you clearly said you suggest it concluded,
> 
> though it's conclusion and your suggestion of its conclusion may not be the same thing, your suggestion is all I have to consider   this point ,so you need to be clear which is the evidence and which is just your conclusion with out evidence, as you seem to be blurring the two


Nope, not at all what I said, actually.


----------



## jobo (Aug 10, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Nope, not at all what I said, actually.


I've just quoted it, that's is quite clearly what you SUGESTED IT SAID

now who is being intellectually dishonest ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2019)

jobo said:


> I've just quoted it, that's is quite clearly what you SUGESTED IT SAID
> 
> now who is being intellectually dishonest ?


Looking back, I can see how you'd read it that way. But you've ignored the context of what you quoted.

My point was (and is - see, no change) that early adult development appears to affect our ability to develop later in adulthood. Likely 20 YO self isn't where that links to (hence the need for context for the quote you mined). And the concept of "ceiling" isn't that you can't get beyond what you were earlier in life, but that what you develop earlier sets the ceiling. Someone who develops more earlier in adulthood would have more capacity to develop after 50 than someone who is sedentary early in adulthood.

So, nice try.


----------



## jobo (Aug 10, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Looking back, I can see how you'd read it that way. But you've ignored the context of what you quoted.
> 
> My point was (and is - see, no change) that early adult development appears to affect our ability to develop later in adulthood. Likely 20 YO self isn't where that links to (hence the need for context for the quote you mined). And the concept of "ceiling" isn't that you can't get beyond what you were earlier in life, but that what you develop earlier sets the ceiling. Someone who develops more earlier in adulthood would have more capacity to develop after 50 than someone who is sedentary early in adulthood.
> 
> So, nice try.


I didn't " quote mine" or take it out of context, I quoted the whole post and therefore it's in context in which YOU wrote it

so let's move it on, what physiological barrier ( ceiling in your words) does you fitness in early adulthood present to fitness levels in middle adulthood, yo know, actually biology


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 10, 2019)

@jobo, I was on you side until you threw in the word biology. Of course that is a lot to do with it. But I am living proof that it is an equally portioned part of the puzzle. I can make a long list of reasons why I should not have gotten as far in my sports career as I did. But I will use animals as a bottom shelf example. Frequently animals of the same breed will be identical but one will lead the pack due to more cunning and desire. One will cower down and one will have the will to lead the pack. 
I cannot speak to the argument of whether a more accomplished young athlete will automatically make it easier when they get older. It did for me until some hard knocks came my way later in life.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> I didn't " quote mine" or take it out of context, I quoted the whole post and therefore it's in context in which YOU wrote it
> 
> so let's move it on, what physiological barrier ( ceiling in your words) does you fitness in early adulthood present to fitness levels in middle adulthood, yo know, actually biology


The study was examining whether there was strong correlation, and there was. They had some hypotheses about what the mechanism was, but those were untested. More studies needed.


----------



## jobo (Aug 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The study was examining whether there was strong correlation, and there was. They had some hypotheses about what the mechanism was, but those were untested. More studies needed.


his is a topic, which for obvious reasons I've got a great deal of interest in and have invest some time in researching, I'm not sure a study you can't quite remember that came to no actually conclusion beyond there being some correlation is moving the discussion on to any extent

there are clear biological reasons why someone who was extremely fit as say 28, can't achieve that level of fitness at 58, which is why professional athletes, in fact good level amateurs, tend to retire a long long way before there 58 the birthday. they can no longer compete with extremely fit 28 year olds, even top  chess players go down hill after 40

the question I've asked myself and I've attempt to answer with my own experiment, what % of that fitness level is actually achievable using sound training techniques  good diet and above all persistent effort or more exactly can I be as fit as a 28 yo that isn't extremely fit the answer seem to be a whole hgearted yes.  but as the potential fitness of our hypothetical 28 yo, is a continuum, we need an objective measure of performance to come to even a informal conclusion on my sample of one.

which is why I use various matrix on fitness, to measure myself, like my sprinting times for instance.

what I can't find a logical biological reason for, is what effect my fitness at 28  has on the level of fitness I can achieve now, its fcar to long ago to actually matter, my muscle development and and ns development and aerobic capacity long ago decayed and I've had to build them up again. some aspects of my fitness now exceed what I could do in my20s  when I was only moderately fit, when compared to good level athletes though above average when compared to the population as a whole,so if this ceiling does exist its only on some aspects

so that the question I've asked you, as your the one saying this ceiling may exist


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> what I can't find a logical biological reason for, is what effect my fitness at 28 has on the level of fitness I can achieve now, its fcar to long ago to actually matter, my muscle development and and ns development and aerobic capacity long ago decayed and I've had to build them up again. some aspects of my fitness now exceed what I could do in my20s when I was only moderately fit, when compared to good level athletes though above average when compared to the population as a whole,so if this ceiling does exist its only on some aspects
> 
> so that the question I've asked you, as your the one saying this ceiling may exist


As I've already pointed out, I don't have an answer on the mechanism. If I can locate the study again, I'll drop a link for you.

I suspect if more studies are done, what we'll find is those who were more fit early in adulthood (regardless of current fitness) are able to more easily get fit  (reach any given level of fitness) in later adulthood. But there was the implication in the initial results that someone who was more fit in early adulthood may actually have raised the ceiling of what's possible in later adulthood, so my suspicion (which more closely matches your own belief) isn't based on the initial study's result.

The only logical link I can think of for this would be if there's some mechanism in muscular development that shuts down if not used for an extended period. Folks who were more active/athletic in their early adulthood may have kept this hypothetical system from turning off, while those who were more sedentary did not. But that's pure conjecture on my part.


----------



## Buka (Aug 11, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> A very interesting article about muscle fiber types and changing them. I read it a few weeks ago and meant to post it, but I forgot. This seems like a great time and place...
> Inside the Cal State Fullerton Muscle Cell Laboratory Research



As I frequently do, I'm a month late and a dollar short responding to a post that I liked. 

I was gong back through the thread, as I tend to do a lot because I forget things that were written, or because we drift from one one thing to another - as all forums do, or in this particular case to watch a video that I passed by the first go round usually because of time restraints and getting to work.

The written part of the article was very informative, but I was hoping the accompanying video went along with the written portion, when in fact it had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The written part of the article speaks for itself scientifically, and was really informative and a joy to read. The accompanying video, however, was about one thing - the proper exercise technique _to make your arms look good_. That's fine, most people like to look good, but that was what it was about - looking good. Putting that video with that article was shoddy work. and, yes, I've already written Men's Health about this.

On the plus side for me, I did learn about doing Preacher Curls from a kneeling position to correct some common cheats we all tend to do, especially when tired.


----------



## JR 137 (Aug 11, 2019)

Buka said:


> As I frequently do, I'm a month late and a dollar short responding to a post that I liked.
> 
> I was gong back through the thread, as I tend to do a lot because I forget things that were written, or because we drift from one one thing to another - as all forums do, or in this particular case to watch a video that I passed by the first go round usually because of time restraints and getting to work.
> 
> ...


I felt the same way. But then again, who doesn’t want nice arms?


----------

