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

[Zombocalypse]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Zombocalypse]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Second post below the post that you quoted.

Second post above the one I just quoted.

 

[jobo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.