"Speed" in Japanese and/or Okinawan karate

[JR 137]

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.

View attachment 22374
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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

??? 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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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.