# thoughts on weight training



## gungfufreddie (Jul 23, 2007)

what do you all think is the most necessary part of the body to do weight training on, and this does also apply in relation to given martial arts.  like wing chun and grip training, boxing and neck/back training, etc..

if you had to say there was a most important muscle group to you what would it be, or what part do you prefer to train and why.

though my opinions change daily or weekly (since the body can be viewed as one team rather than individual units)  but i prefer to train the gluttes, rhomboids (located below trapezius), latissimus dorsi (lats), and the entire forearm muscles (extensors, efflexors, etc...)

if you have any opinions and lifting/training methods please share them with me.  this is my focus of study and my center of life so your input is valuable!!  thanks for reading


----------



## Drac (Jul 23, 2007)

I won't say its impossible to train only one muscle group, I see guys at the gym only do bicep curls so they will look good in a t shirt..My question is why??For any combat art train the whole body..Arms,legs,chest and back..


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 23, 2007)

Drac said:


> I won't say its impossible to train only one muscle group, I see guys at the gym only do bicep curls so they will look good in a t shirt..My question is why??For any combat art train the whole body..Arms,legs,chest and back..


Ditto...

You can't train just one part or you'll end up unbalanced.  Especially since most martial arts use entire chains of muscles to punch or kick, like forearm/tricep/lats/quads/calves/toes for a punch.

If you want to minimize your time in the weight room, do compound exercises that work multiple groups, like squats or deadlifts for the lower body.


----------



## exile (Jul 23, 2007)

Drac said:


> I won't say its impossible to train only one muscle group, I see guys at the gym only do bicep curls so they will look good in a t shirt..My question is why??For any combat art train the whole body..Arms,legs,chest and back..





jks9199 said:


> Ditto...
> 
> You can't train just one part or you'll end up unbalanced.  Especially since most martial arts use entire chains of muscles to punch or kick, like forearm/tricep/lats/quads/calves/toes for a punch.
> 
> If you want to minimize your time in the weight room, do compound exercises that work multiple groups, like squats or deadlifts for the lower body.



Absolutely right, gentlemen, based on my own training experience...

There's some reason to believe that compound exercises are far more efficient than isolation exercises for promoting muscle growth. Reason: compound exercises enable to you lift vastly more weight than isolation exercises, and it's the _total_ resistance  (for a given length of time and distance) that you move that constitutes the trigger for muscle growth (hence strength increases). Example: get in a power rack, set the holding pins high enough that you only have about three inches of movement at the topyour strongest range, in terms of skeletal leverageset the protection bars accordingly, and add weights to the point where you're at your strength limits. If you can bench full range at 135lbs, you'll almost certainly be able to do a very reduced range bench at 225two wheels per side instead of one, and with rapid reping, you'll cover the same distance in the same time as you would with the 135lbs. But your power output is now way more than half greater. Next, go to the cable crossover machine, configure it for a pec isolation exercise, and try to move the cables together to lift your max weight on that machine. If you can manage 80 or 90 lbs, you'll be doing well! Even if you can get someone to help you, so you can get the weights lifted up to where you actually only begin the exercise in your strongest rangewith the cable handle almost all the way to your centerlineyou'll still be able to shift probably no more than 110 lbs or so, and that's if you're already quite strong. That's the difference between a compound exercise and an isolation exercise.

If I had to pick just three exercises to work on, they would be the great classic compound exercises: bench press for chest, seated shoulder press (for the shoulder girdle), and squats (or more safely, leg pressesspinal compression is always a danger with squats) for lower body. And for biceps, I'd forget about curls and do the following: get a chain belt, wrap it around a 20lb dumbbell to start with, get a bench to stand on in front of an overhead hanging bar, and pull yourself up on it so your shoulders are level with the bar, usind a palms-inward grip. Do that 20 times and your biceps will _know_ it. But it will also work your lats a bit as well... another compound exercise, in other words. My own strength training approach has been to avoid isolation exercises wherever possible; you get much more bang for the buck from compounds...


----------



## Drac (Jul 23, 2007)

exile said:


> If I had to pick just three exercises to work on, they would be the great classic compound exercises: bench press for chest, seated shoulder press (for the shoulder girdle), and squats


 
I was going to call you all manner of unclean things if you had forgotten the squat...These are all *EXCELLENT* exercises..


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 23, 2007)

I've gotta say that, DONE WITH PROPER FORM, the squat is almost the one indispensible weight exercise.  Form is vital, or you will hurt yourself.  Have a KNOWLEDGEABLE trainer correct and guide you, and don't use more weight than you do properly.  It works almost the entire body.  

If you really want to have "fun"...  use much less weight than you think (an olympic-style bar maybe all you can handle, even if you're strong!), and add a shoulder press to the squat.  I've done this three ways: 1. as you squat, press up; 2. press up once, and hold it, then do squats (hellacious core exercise!); 3. like a clean and jerk, without the clean -- squat, raise, press up, lower, squat, repeat.  Then make it even better... and superset it!


----------



## Hawke (Jul 24, 2007)

You may want to try working your core muscles (abs, gluts, hams, quads).

Being active and doing something fun (swimming, basket ball, hockey, volley ball, etc).  Change the workout.  You might be better off training your whole body.

Remember to stretch (before, during, and after your workout) and drink plenty of water.


----------



## tntma12 (Jul 24, 2007)

I would recommend working your entire body.  Legs, Back, Chest, Shoulders, Arms, Abs.


----------



## exile (Jul 24, 2007)

Drac said:


> I was going to call you all manner of unclean things if you had forgotten the squat...



And I'd have deserved them all! :lol:




Drac said:


> These are all *EXCELLENT* exercises..



A lot of people have gotten very strong doing just those exercises, I'll bet. Weight training is one area where keeping it simple really does pay off. One thing that helps a lot with squats is this device I have called a MantaRay. It's this contoured blue thing shaped like a... well, floppy manta ray that fits the contour of your uppoer back, and has a deep groove running across it where a loaded barbell sits. Distributes the weight much more evenly and comfortably than one of those foam pads with a velcro closure that you coil around the barbell; those things still dig into your back and hurt like hell. That doesn't happen with the MantaRay. 

But I had to replace the squat with (much heavier) leg presses. Since I squat very short rangejust the top thirdI can do it in a power rack; that kind of squat really hits the quads above the knee hard. I was squatting 425 at my best, but my spine just couldn't take itthe MantaRay saves you from that horrible feeling of the bar `cutting in', but obviously the total weight is the same, and the feeling of pressure on my spine was scary. My mother, her brother and a couple of other relatives on that side have had badly herniated discsmy mother was in traction in hospital for something like ten days, I remember, when I was a kidso I figured, after one particularly grueling session, that I'd better quit while I was ahead. I don't think using  a leg press machine is as good as squatting, even with equivalent weights (you need to double the leg press weight to get the same vertical component as a normal squat, at least on a normal one set at 45º), but... I don't need a slipped disc!


----------



## Drac (Jul 24, 2007)

exile said:


> But I had to replace the squat with (much heavier) leg presses. Since I squat very short rangejust the top thirdI can do it in a power rack; that kind of squat really hits the quads above the knee hard. I was squatting 425 at my best, but my spine just couldn't take itthe MantaRay saves you from that horrible feeling of the bar `cutting in', but obviously the total weight is the same, and the feeling of pressure on my spine was scary. My mother, her brother and a couple of other relatives on that side have had badly herniated discsmy mother was in traction in hospital for something like ten days, I remember, when I was a kidso I figured, after one particularly grueling session, that I'd better quit while I was ahead. I don't think using a leg press machine is as good as squatting, even with equivalent weights (you need to double the leg press weight to get the same vertical component as a normal squat, at least on a normal one set at 45º), but... I don't need a slipped disc!


 
I have seen the "Manta Ray" at the gym...We have a plate loaded squat machine that can be adjusted for a deep squat or a 1/2 squat..It also has a built in feature that prevents the machine from smashing down on you..It comes in real handy on those days where you throw on a another 45lb plate because your believe you're ready for it...LOL.


----------



## exile (Jul 24, 2007)

Drac said:


> I have seen the "Manta Ray" at the gym...



It's a brilliant invention... with that kind of weight on your back, the last thing you need is an additional source of pain, eh? 



Drac said:


> We have a plate loaded squat machine that can be adjusted for a deep squat or a 1/2 squat..It also has a built in feature that prevents the machine from smashing down on you..It comes in real handy on those days where you throw on a another 45lb plate because your believe you're ready for it...LOL.



Smart setup, it souns like. I'm amazed more people don't kill themselves doing deep squats...

Speaking of which,  most gyms I've worked out in have power racks, but very few people ever seem to use them. They're live-savers alsomuch safer than having someone spot you!


----------



## meth18au (Jul 24, 2007)

Most of the above posts have covered really good points.  However, I've recently discovered in the past few months a new way of lifting to yield brilliant results- powerlifting.  In particular- Power Cleans, Snatches and Overhead Push Press (Jerk).  

I feel it has helped my development greatly in terms of strength and power.  I've always just lifted weights with the bodybuilding mindset (i.e. multiple sets of multiple reps and trying to last the whole set).  The powerlifting mindset is different- you conserve NOTHING.  Every single rep of every single set is 120% effort.

The only downside is that you do have to learn it properly from a trainer with experience in powerlifting.  Form and technique are crucial to developing the power and avoiding injuries.  And it definitely has helped my power in Muay Thai, especially in the punches.  Must be all that explosive power that is getting built in my body!!!!!

However having said all that, it is still not my favourite way of training.  I have a real soft spot for the ol' chest routine!!!!  Although you might argue it isn't the most useful muscle in martial arts when compared to other muscle groups!!!


----------



## Drac (Jul 25, 2007)

Hawke said:


> You may want to try working your core muscles (abs, gluts, hams, quads).


 
I do abs at EVERY workout...


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Jul 25, 2007)

I agree with the above statements.  On a specific note, foerarms, neck, and abs.  You still have to train everything else, but I recommend specializing in holding on, not getting your neck broken and being able to throw more force into your twisting movements.  I, personally, detest squats and won't do them anymore.  Too hard on my knees, even with a good warm-up.  Practice crushing walnuts in your hand.  After a couple weeks you'll be able to do it (if you can't already).  Eventually you can move on to coconut husks.


----------



## gungfufreddie (Jul 27, 2007)

now to change the conversation up a bit, which do you prefer:
muscularity programs or power programs?

power - application of strength (how i see it in a nutshell)
muscularity - endurance and stability of muscle fibers

reply when you can and thank you for your input
Frankie


----------



## terryl965 (Jul 27, 2007)

Both but that really does not answer your question. I believe you must have a great balance to be that perfect weapon.


----------



## exile (Jul 27, 2007)

meth18au said:


> I have a real soft spot for the ol' chest routine!!!!  Although you might argue it isn't the most useful muscle in martial arts when compared to other muscle groups!!!



Well, interestingly, it appears that intense benches do yield significant results for shoulder girdle strength, as I discovered to my great surprise and relief after I had to stop doing specific shoulder exercises for about two years after a very bad lifting accident resulted in multiple full-thickness tears in my right rotator cuff and a fractured scapula in the bargain. It took me about six months of intense physiotherapy to get back my full strength and mobility in my right arm and shoulder, and for a year after that I avoided seated shoulder presses, which I had been doing with quite heavy weight, upwards of 225 lbs, in a power rack when I had the accident. After doing benches during that time, and no shoulder exercises at all, I started incorporating seated shoulder presses back into my workout and found that I had only lost a little bit of strength in my delts, and have been rapidly closing in on my highest short-range shoulder press weight. My only explanation for this effect is that the compound nature of the bench press, working as it does pecs, delts, triceps and abdominal core muscles, protected my deltoid strength from the steep dropoff I'd been fearing as a result of avoiding all specific shoulder work for that long. So I think it's not just a matter of working on an impressive-looking but functionally unimportant muscle group (from an MA perspective) when you do serious benches; you really are working much of the whole upper body muscle complex, and that has to help both your overall muscularity and your MA functionality.




gungfufreddie said:


> now to change the conversation up a bit, which do you prefer:
> muscularity programs or power programs?
> 
> power - application of strength (how i see it in a nutshell)
> ...



The way I see it, the stronger you are, the more force you can generate in a given unit of time over the same distance, i.e., the more power you can _generate._ There's a whole weight-training system, Sisco and Little's Power Factor model, which uses the calculation of increasing power (force/time for a fixed distance) as a measure of increasing strength and as a guide to your training schedule (crucially incorporating extremely heavy weights over very short distances and rapid reps at these weights&#8212;hence the need for a power rack). Once you've done strength training for long enough, you can generate power to a much greater degree than you could before, but the other side of the coin is effective _application_, the delivery, of that power to a target. As Terry indicates in his last post above, both are crucial. Accurate delivery still requires you to be able to have something in the bank to deliver, and the greatest talent for power generation won't do you that much good if you can't deliver it in a focused fashion to an appropriate target. You need a balanced approach, as Terry says, and you have to work on both sides of it...


----------



## meth18au (Jul 28, 2007)

exile said:


> So I think it's not just a matter of working on an impressive-looking but functionally unimportant muscle group (from an MA perspective) when you do serious benches; you really are working much of the whole upper body muscle complex, and that has to help both your overall muscularity and your MA functionality.



Too right that it is an impressive looking muscle group!!! he he.  It's true though- I'd hate to see where my upper body strength would be without my favorite bench press.

I would definitely agree with Exile and Terry here- there is no doubt that the optimal situation would involve the training of both power and strength.  In my experience though, many people focus on the 'bodybuilding' side (i.e. strength and physique), and tend to neglect the powerlifting side of things.  I have attended various public gyms over the years and seen this with the majority of people.  I also see it amongst my friends and peers, both MA's and non-MA's.  Do you tend to agree with this?  

This may be kinda veering off topic now- I have encountered some deal of negativity amongst my MA peers (both at my old Kung Fu school and my current Muay Thai gym) in regards to the lifting of weights.  Not everyone, but many have been of the opinion that body-weight resistance exercises are either enough or more effective!!!!  Has anybody encountered this, or is of this opinion?


----------



## exile (Jul 28, 2007)

meth18au said:


> In my experience though, many people focus on the 'bodybuilding' side (i.e. strength and physique), and tend to neglect the powerlifting side of things.  I have attended various public gyms over the years and seen this with the majority of people.  I also see it amongst my friends and peers, both MA's and non-MA's.  Do you tend to agree with this?



I think this is true, and it's unfortunate, meth, because powerlifting is great for training the application of power. You have a very small window to get that momentum over the threshhold and move the weight to the new stable position. Every single motor unit must be recruited and fire in perfect tandem to do it. All the strength in the world isn't going to help you unless you can deliver the necessary force in a very short unit of time, corresponding to that window. Focus, in other words... it's true, strength by itself won't do the job: it's necessary but not sufficient.




meth18au said:


> This may be kinda veering off topic now- I have encountered some deal of negativity amongst my MA peers (both at my old Kung Fu school and my current Muay Thai gym) in regards to the lifting of weights.  Not everyone, but many have been of the opinion that body-weight resistance exercises are either enough or more effective!!!!  Has anybody encountered this, or is of this opinion?



Bruce Lee trained weights over much of his career, serious weights. I remember an article in an old weightlifting mag I had about his program, and it was _intense_ He believed that every single possible source of advantage to a MAist was necessary to explore&#8212;because if you didn't, and you oppo did, then you had a strike against you to begin with. BL was certainly not infallible, but I think he was right on target here.  I've read threads in MT where people were arguing that in certain MAs, you didn't need increased strength, that it could actually be a liability because you would come to rely on it instead of `feel', of the trained response of your sense perceptions, of fluid movement. I've never bought it, myself. I see no reason why you can't have _both_, and if you do, you're doing to defeat someone who only has one or the other, all other things being equal.

Check out the archived Aikido threads&#8212;there's one on this very issue whose content should be evident from the thread title....


----------



## meth18au (Jul 29, 2007)

I love that description of powerlifting- it's right on the spot!!!!  Makes me feel like going out and pumping out some power cleans!!! 



exile said:


> I've never bought it, myself. I see no reason why you can't have _both_, and if you do, you're doing to defeat someone who only has one or the other, all other things being equal



I am in 100% agreement here.  Have no weakness in your game!!!  I might just go have a read of the old Aikido thread- right about now....


----------



## Drac (Jul 29, 2007)

Intensity is the key element...


----------



## exile (Jul 29, 2007)

Drac said:


> Intensity is the key element...



Yup. Intense training, for aerobic capacity, strength, overall conditioning or whatever, gives you by far the biggest bang for your time investment buck.

The price you pay, of course, is that intense training tends to take you into zones of considerable discomfort to a much greater extent than low-intensity long-duration training. But who said training was supposed to be _fun???_ :EG:


----------



## Drac (Jul 29, 2007)

exile said:


> The price you pay, of course, is that intense training tends to take you into zones of considerable discomfort to a much greater extent than low-intensity long-duration training. But who said training was supposed to be _fun???_ :EG:


 
That's why God invented Tigers Balm(red) and Jack Daniels(black)..


----------



## exile (Jul 29, 2007)

Drac said:


> That's way God invented Tigers Balm(red) and Jack Daniels(black)..



_EXACTLY_the fun is for _later!_ :drinky: :drinkbeer: :drinky:


----------



## still learning (Jul 29, 2007)

Hello, Weight training willl increase your muscle size...strength..and longer hairs (not sure of this one).

Anytime you can make yourself stronger...will only benifit you!

Try this one excerise only:  squeeze a ball several hunderd times a day, rotate each hand.

By the end of the month grab someone?  Your grip will be so much stronger....you will be able to make them do what you want? ...pull,throw,?  This is more of a strenght training (but the idea is to increase muscle size.  Weight training does this too!

Push-up's is weight training too, sit-up's, jumping rope all involves moving weights. The bigger your body the more weight's need to be move!

Weighting your thoughts on weight training?  Go with the weights!

A police man can raise his hand and hold up the traffic (this makes him one of the strongist man in the world.)

Aloha.....


----------



## K831 (Jul 29, 2007)

In most sports, putting on muscle and "bulking up" is not advantageous. Most sports require agility and speed and endurance, bodybuilding programs typically entail slow speed of muscle contractions. Power is important, but does not necessarily equate to size or muscle mass.

I look at what body systems I feel I need to improve and build my program around that. For example, one athlete may lack muscle endurance or cardio vascular endurance. Another may lack speed / quickness or explosiveness. One may lack max strength/power. Each will require a different program.  

Do you want to focus on fast twitch response or muscle endurance? Lots to think about.

My program has a varied approach. I incorporate a lot of Olympic lifts (power clean, hang cleans, high pulls, push press etc) for explosiveness and to train the body as one unit (for neurological reasons, as well time).

I will often through in a power lifting day for strength / power or add in some plyometrics.  Usually one day  a week is a Hypertrophy day. Despite not being worth as much athletically, I like to keep a little size and symmetry. 

I would recommend this article (as well as both of this guys websites, lots of good stuff for fighters); 

http://www.rosstraining.com/articles/strengthtraining.html 

http://rosstraining.com/ 
http://www.rossboxing.com/ 

Check out his articles and video's.

Also, for those who haven't read it, I would recommend Periodization Training for Sports, by Tudor O Bompa. 

I didn't have time to read each post, so I hope this is helpful and not redundant.


----------



## exile (Jul 29, 2007)

K831 said:


> In most sports, putting on muscle and "bulking up" is not advantageous. Most sports require agility and speed and endurance, bodybuilding programs typically entail slow speed of muscle contractions. Power is important, but does not necessarily equate to size or muscle mass.



Sorry... I just don't get this. 

(i) Muscles supply their own vascularization&#8212;increase your muscle mass and there's a concommittant increase in local capillary density, so no matter how muscular you get, you're still going to be supplied with nutriants for as much muscle as  you have. And muscle growth doesn't involve the slightest decrease in activation time for the muscles involved: the same neural units activate larger muscle bundles as smaller ones, and again, synaptic connections increase as muscle size (indeed any `active' tissue mass) increases. So where would a `slowdown' come from??

(ii) _bodybuilding programs typically entail slow speed of muscle contractions_... in what sense?? Are you saying that increasing muscle mass leads to the decrease in the speed of muscle neural motor unit activation?? What evidence would there be for this decrease? And if there isn't any, what do those the statements I've quoted mean?

I've just turned 60. I weigh around 180 lbs, and at my last body comp test showed up with something like 9&#8211;10% body fat... but when I was a scrawny teenager and into my early 20s, I weighed around 150, probably the same %. So since then, I've added 30 lbs, almost all of it lean muscle tissue. I'm faster now than I ever have been in my life, even when I was a ski racer in my late 20s, and do heavy lifting on an (systematically infrequent) regular basis, using the Sisco/Little `power factor' protocol (very short reps at high speed in only the strongest range of motion, using a power rack for most exercises). I see absolutely no disadvantages in terms of speed, agility, flexibility etc. to serious weight training... only advantages.


----------



## gungfufreddie (Jul 29, 2007)

I like the input here, honestly i've always done alternating shifts for power and muscularity.  i perform these on weekly basis, power - 3 sets of 10 on a comfortable weight, as the weeks go on i increase the weight (not reps) and record progress.  on muscularity - 3 sets of 10 on comfortable weight, as weeks go on i increase repetitions (not weight) and record progress.  i've been doing this for the past year, progress was slow but once it got started it kept going like a freight train.  originally i could only do about 40 lbs max on my one arm row, now i can do 150 lbs max 3 reps max and i can do god knows how many at 50 lbs.  hopefully i gave information worth applying, if not let me know and i can attempt to give information worth while.  fitness is my passion and i love discussing it, your body is the best instrument you will ever own so use it in anyway you can!


----------



## bujuts (Jul 29, 2007)

We should consider that most striking will be performed with extensor groups, not flexors.  So, while biceps might do right for looks, they won't make you hit harder ('cept, they will help in grappling strength, of course).

All in all, I prefer to work functional development.  In regards to hitting, the major extensor groups at work are the shoulders (traps and rear deltoids), triceps, lats, quads, calves.  Core strength through abs and obliques, etc. not withstanding.  

I feel legs are among the most important, even for those who don't kick much.   Looks might be a convenient by-product (I tell my girlfriend I like to "stay in shape", but that's BS, I want to HIT HARDER  ), but functional power, fast twitch, and endurance are what I'm after.  Also, don't forget exercises that challenge connective tissues, not just muscle.

Cheers


----------



## K831 (Jul 30, 2007)

Great questions, thoughts and observations, thanks. Just as a clarification, I am not against strength training, I think it is an absolute must for any athlete for a number of reasons. I am against bulking up just for the hell of it, without thought to a program that takes into account more than just the goal of hypertrophy. That alone is not advantageous to an athlete.

To you specific questions;



exile said:


> _bodybuilding programs typically entail slow speed of muscle contractions_... in what sense?? Are you saying that increasing muscle mass leads to the decrease in the speed of muscle neural motor unit activation?? What evidence would there be for this decrease? And if there isn't any, what do those the statements I've quoted mean?



Bodybuilders number one concern is with hypertrophy, or an increase in muscle size. Body building programs typically entail a rep range of 6- 12 most often to exhaustion. They often focus on isolation, to insure symmetrical and aesthetic development of each individual muscle. 

The body, when active in sports, rarely works in isolation, and should be trained as a complete unit whenever possible. As far as speed of muscle contraction  athletic movements (especially martial arts) are explosive. The slow speed of contraction in bodybuilding has limited positive transfer to sports. Most athletic movements fall between 100 to 180 milliseconds  they are performed quickly. Leg extensions, bicep curls etc, fall within the 600 to 800 millisecond range. This is a noticeable difference in contraction time and ultimately in motor unit and fiber type recruitment. 

Again, most bodybuilding programs focus on the aesthetic development of each muscle. Sports focus on a specific ability, and should specify the most dominant ability (ie, the one that a sport requires in higher demand.) Maybe that dominant ability is power, or the ability to perform an explosive movement the shortest amount of time possible. This biomotor ability is a function of maximum strength, and speed strength. Neither of these are trained using a rep range of 6-12 with a 600 millisecond muscle contraction. That is specifically designed for hypertrophy. While more muscle mass may not slow a fellow down, unless it was trained specifically, it wont speed him up, either. 

It is the development  of a specific dominant biomotor ability a fighter needs to focus on, not just I wanna get big, man. 

Its a matter of goals, in no way does strength training slow a fighter down, nor hurt his flexibility and endurance, but a body building programmed focusing only on gaining size certainly can. 



exile said:


> (i) Muscles supply their own vascularizationincrease your muscle mass and there's a concommittant increase in local capillary density, so no matter how muscular you get, you're still going to be supplied with nutriants for as much muscle as  you have. And muscle growth doesn't involve the slightest decrease in activation time for the muscles involved: the same neural units activate larger muscle bundles as smaller ones, and again, synaptic connections increase as muscle size (indeed any `active' tissue mass) increases. So where would a `slowdown' come from??



Yes, the same neural units activate the muscle regardless of size. However, the type of training does impact the speed at which the muscle fibers can be recruited and the percentage of total muscle fibers recruited. This has a specific effect on starting power, reactive power, speed, and endurance and so each biomotor ability must be trained as such.  The speed of contraction is load related  that is why you have more force at the beginning of a contraction than at the end. As you know, muscles have motor nerves and sensory nerves  It is the motor nerves that relate to movement. The motor nerves send impulses from the nervous system to the motor end plate which result in muscle contraction. Each muscle has special fibers  that facilitate contraction. The ability a muscle has to contract or exert an amount of force is based on the type of fiber it is  its length, and the actual number of fibers within the muscle. The number of fibers is pretty much set, the rest can be manipulated through training. 

A single motor nerve together with muscle fiber is a motor unit.  You mentioned that 





exile said:


> the same neural units activate larger muscle bundles as smaller ones, and again, synaptic connections increase as muscle size (indeed any `active' tissue mass) increases.


 Yes, but while the muscle fibers respond to the stimulation of the motor nerve within a single motor unit, not all motor units are activated during a muscle contraction. 
The actual number of motor units involved in a contraction depends on the load imposed on the muscle and the contraction duration (600 milliseconds vs. 150 milliseconds). In this regard, a body building / hypertrophy specific program would use a moderate load,  (say 8 to 12 reps) and recruit a smaller number of total motor units and thus the strength of the contraction is low. Extremely heavy loads recruit all, or almost all, motor units thus training maximal force output (or speed/power). 

In addition, motor units are recruited in sequence, and the only way to train the entire muscle is to use maximum loads where every motor unit is recruited. 

This begs the question, do we want to train Type I (slow twitch ) or Type II (fast twitch) muscle fibers? What biomotor ability is most prominent in your sport or type of competition? 

For example, while endurance (both cardio and muscular) is important to the fighter planning on going 15 rounds (or 5 three minute rounds) he will still rely heavily on fast twitch muscle. This is even more the case for the guy training with self-defense in mind, where speed and force production is of the essence.  Fast twitch fibers are used in short, fast burst type activities (a jab, front kick or parry) it is not only the speed of the contraction that that causes motor nerves to recruit fast twitch fibers, but the force of the muscle. This is why athletes that require explosive movements must increase power  Body building programs fail to utilize the contraction speed needed, or the load needed, to fully recruit motor units and the full range of fast twitch fibers. As fighters, we are often concerned with explosive strength. The ability to produce maximal forces in minimal time is called explosive strength. Strong people do not necessarily possess explosive strength. The development of one strength quality (ex. max-strength) does not guarantee the development of another

 I appreciate the questions and points. I hope this helps explain what I meant, and my  view on training. I should note, that most of this info came from my PDBIO classes, the direct quotes and definitions of strength types came from Tudor Bompa, and Ross Enamait. I strongly recommend their material. 

Thanks for the conversation sir!


----------



## project.mayhem. (Aug 2, 2007)

gungfufreddie said:


> what do you all think is the most necessary part of the body to do weight training on, and this does also apply in relation to given martial arts. like wing chun and grip training, boxing and neck/back training, etc..
> 
> if you had to say there was a most important muscle group to you what would it be, or what part do you prefer to train and why.
> 
> ...


 
Train everything! And don't forget your deadlifts and squats


----------

