Training Outside of Class?

[jobo]

Newton was aware of Friction, since it was experimented with by Galileo before him. Newton's first law (the law of inertia) states that an object will remain in motion until acted on by an outside force. If he was able to come to this conclusion, he must have known about Friction as the main stopping force. After all, if Friction didn't exist, according to the law of inertia, a ball that starts rolling forwards along a flat surface would continue to roll forever.

Anyway, going back to the previous point, I don't know how accurately you could measure force using F=MxA when only a portion of the object is moved.

Only if you you invent an infinite flat surface, otherwise it will sooner or later crash into something, and it was gravity not friction he was referring to.No gravity no friction of your rolling ball
I'm m sure he was aware of friction, but he didn't bother with it, so any attempt to introduce friction in the calculation stops it being Newtonian

And he was wrong about gravity as well,

 

[_Simon_]

One of the statements on their page says "The harder you hit the higher the numbers go." This works for me, because it doesn't do anything beyond giving me a number in which to try to maintain or exceed for the purpose of training strikes. They could have measured it in rabbit poo and I would still have benefit from it. I need to try to maintain a count of 163 rabbit droppings force for as long as I can. When the number of rabbit droppings decrease it means that my leg is becoming tired.

Hahaha..... there we go, THAT is the new standard of measurement, innovation! XD

And great point!

 

[_Simon_]

XD

.

 

[pdg]

poo and I would still have benefit from it. I need to try to maintain a count of 163 rabbit droppings force for as long as I can. When the number of rabbit droppings decrease it means that my leg is becoming tired

That bit I agree with, the units don't matter as long as they're measurable and consistent.

But, using a proprietary (and secretly calculated) unit restricts you to only ever using their machine to compare and track your own performance, and only allows comparison to another if they're using an identical machine.

As a thing for yourself it may have merit just so long as you don't have a target (because having a target of 1500 flumps means nothing unless you know what they are and how the scale increases), but unless it becomes an industry standard with an open methodology you can never use it as an example.

 

[jobo]

You are way over exaggerating the condition. Through stretching the muscle learns to lengthen, then when not stretching it return to its "normal" length. Think of when you bend at the knee. The quad lengthens then retracts.
In the muscle is sinew, collections of fibrous material that are packed with nerves. The sinew is literally broken when stretched far enough. It triggers the body to release lactic acid in higher quantities that aggravates the muscle. This is the soreness we feel. As we age the muscles loose their ability to stretch and, I agree, for some the nerves get messed up and trigger more and often quicker to prevent injury.

Ok, the quad,,,,,,,, the quad doesNt pass the knee, the articulation of the lower leg is done by tendons, the quad is firmly fixed to the lower femur, explain how movement of the knee makes the quad longer?

 

[jobo]

That bit I agree with, the units don't matter as long as they're measurable and consistent.

But, using a proprietary (and secretly calculated) unit restricts you to only ever using their machine to compare and track your own performance, and only allows comparison to another if they're using an identical machine.

As a thing for yourself it may have merit just so long as you don't have a target (because having a target of 1500 flumps means nothing unless you know what they are and how the scale increases), but unless it becomes an industry standard with an open methodology you can never use it as an example.

It was for much that reason that they did away with the furkin

 

[spidersam]

You watch ...you listen ...you absorb...you look at yourself ...and you learn about yourself ... every human being trains at something everyday even tho they don't think they are ... don't get hung up on improvement as that will send you on a downward spiral and maybe into self doubt. Think on this ...Not every person can have done what you have already done so you have achieved already ...every person progresses at different rates and to different levels ...yes set your goals but do not over set them set them high enough to push you but not so high that you lose confidence and start self doubting ...

Patience ...watch ...listen...absorb and then move froward you will get there

@oldwarrior understood, thank you for your encouraging and helpful words.

 

[JowGaWolf]

But, using a proprietary (and secretly calculated) unit restricts you to only ever using their machine to compare and track your own performance, and only allows comparison to another if they're using an identical machine.

That us correct and I think that's where the business marketing come in to answer this question "why should I buy your machine?" and "what makes your machine unique compared to the ones that already out there?"

As a thing for yourself it may have merit just so long as you don't have a target (because having a target of 1500 flumps means nothing unless you know what they are and how the scale increases), but unless it becomes an industry standard with an open methodology you can never use it as an example.

Correct it wouldn't matter, because when I kick or punch people, I don't take measurements or readings. But if I'm hitting a practice target "The harder I hit, the higher the numbers will go" is all that matters.
For example: what is being measured? Do you think they know what the measurements mean and how the scale increases? The only thing they know is that the numbers go up the harder you hit.

This guy is totally out of luck because he can't measure anything by the numbers

but unless it becomes an industry standard with an open methodology you can never use it as an example.

I'm pretty sure they don't want it to become an industry standard, They probably only want to have a unique product that people can only get from them. A lot more has to go into standardizing a measurement.

For example, when they talk about measuring power on something that gives by doing .... XYZ. When they added that part then I lost interest because what's the point of adding that to the equation. How a person gives with a kick isn't constant and i don't know anyone would be able to measure that. Some give more than others and some don't give at all, then you take up body composition. How much fat and muscle is on the impact area? Does the target have a strong or weak root? Is the target moving and if so what direction? A target that is solid and sits on a surface with little give will provide better numbers and would make better use of science.

What is are the measurements calculating? Is the machine just measuring (like a measuring cup) or are the measurements being used in calculations in order to determine something (how much lift is needed to break to leave earth). If it's just taking measurements then pretty much anything works. Lbs. and Kilograms weren't always standard. If the measurements are used to calculate something else, there will be problems.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If the OP wanted to train for martial arts improvement then much of what he'll have to learn is understanding of technique (all of the mechanics involved) and effectiveness of technique (understanding how to effectively apply the techniques) where effectiveness is measured by desirable results.

there's a lot to it, but in short being able to do a split may not factor into the understanding of a technique or the effectiveness of a technique. If that's the case then what is the purpose of being able to do a split?

 

[pdg]

That us correct and I think that's where the business marketing come in to answer this question "why should I buy your machine?" and "what makes your machine unique compared to the ones that already out there?"

Correct it wouldn't matter, because when I kick or punch people, I don't take measurements or readings. But if I'm hitting a practice target "The harder I hit, the higher the numbers will go" is all that matters.
For example: what is being measured? Do you think they know what the measurements mean and how the scale increases? The only thing they know is that the numbers go up the harder you hit.

This guy is totally out of luck because he can't measure anything by the numbers

I'm pretty sure they don't want it to become an industry standard, They probably only want to have a unique product that people can only get from them. A lot more has to go into standardizing a measurement.

For example, when they talk about measuring power on something that gives by doing .... XYZ. When they added that part then I lost interest because what's the point of adding that to the equation. How a person gives with a kick isn't constant and i don't know anyone would be able to measure that. Some give more than others and some don't give at all, then you take up body composition. How much fat and muscle is on the impact area? Does the target have a strong or weak root? Is the target moving and if so what direction? A target that is solid and sits on a surface with little give will provide better numbers and would make better use of science.

What is are the measurements calculating? Is the machine just measuring (like a measuring cup) or are the measurements being used in calculations in order to determine something (how much lift is needed to break to leave earth). If it's just taking measurements then pretty much anything works. Lbs. and Kilograms weren't always standard. If the measurements are used to calculate something else, there will be problems.

In essence, I don't think their machine has much of a purpose.

I've only ever measured my kicks and punches with boards - I can break more now than I used to...

With a bag, can you make it swing more than before?

Those sorts of measurements mean more to me than a machine that gives a number that has no basis (other than higher number = harder impact, dur).

If someone feels a number is important, surely they'd want to compare that number with others? Otherwise, what's the point of putting a number on it?

Pounds and kilogrammes weren't standard until they were made so for comparison and trade reasons - non standard measurements are only any good if they can be replicated.

If they said something like "1 franklin is equal to 3.75 kilos travelling at 14m/s" then we'd have a basis.

But apparently, franklins seem to not conform to standardised systems of measure.

 

[JowGaWolf]

In essence, I don't think their machine has much of a purpose.

I've only ever measured my kicks and punches with boards - I can break more now than I used to...

With a bag, can you make it swing more than before?

Those sorts of measurements mean more to me than a machine that gives a number that has no basis (other than higher number = harder impact, dur).

If someone feels a number is important, surely they'd want to compare that number with others? Otherwise, what's the point of putting a number on it?

Pounds and kilogrammes weren't standard until they were made so for comparison and trade reasons - non standard measurements are only any good if they can be replicated.

If they said something like "1 franklin is equal to 3.75 kilos travelling at 14m/s" then we'd have a basis.

But apparently, franklins seem to not conform to standardised systems of measure.

I personally measure my punches by the dent it leaves in the bag. I literally try to dig into the bag with punches with minimal bag swing. The wider the dent the less accurate my punches are. It's the only way for me to measure the punch. A machimne that measure punching depth would be more meaningfull to me. Until then I would just use a regular heavy bag.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How are they different, by your definition?

It's the difference of whether you're actually working to lengthen the muscle, or to train the nervous system response. Static stretches have strong evidence for their ability to increase range of motion, but as Jobo points out, they confuse the nervous system and can actually lead to injuries if used right before vigorous activity (muscles are less elastic, due to nervous system response). They don't effectively train the nervous system, as I understand it, but do a good job of elongating the muscle. Dynamic stretches do a bit of both. Working a kick that has a limited range (like that front kick), the biggest gain you'll get is probably from nervous system retraining - there's so little actual stretch available in that motion, it's unlikely the muscles are being stretched unless they are injured.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think he means, that dynamic stretching is to warm the mMuscle and fill it full of blood, both of which will make it more eleastic, but it won't alter your Actual range of motion, in the long term , That needs static streyching

Pretty close.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Eer, it's said that under general anesthesia thAt every one Is as supple as a new born baby, alcohol also works quite well as its depressed the serious system, I'm not saying that inelastic muscles army an issue, just that they are not the main issue, as the never get to stretch as theNervious system won't let them And at least generally you can't lengthen muscles, damaged muscles perhaps, but you can stretch your hamstring for ever, it will never get any longer, it's fixed at either end and that's it's lengh,, but you can get the ns, to give a greater range of motion

I'm not familiar with those studies, but I've seen some evidence that agrees and disagrees all at once. I need to think about that a bit - my understanding may need updating.

However, it is my understanding that a good stretch (like good exercise) micro-damages a muscle. The muscle responds by building new fiber to bridge the micro-tears, resulting in (very gradually) longer muscles. Perhaps someone with a background in kinesiology can update/correct/confirm that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How many “big” Olympic sprinter have you ever seen?

Compare sprinters to most marathoners - sprinters are typically more muscular by a significant margin. And, though I was pretty fast back in my 20's, I've never been fast enough to outrun most NFL running backs, tight ends, etc. in a 100-yard sprint.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Compare sprinters to most marathoners - sprinters are typically more muscular by a significant margin. And, though I was pretty fast back in my 20's, I've never been fast enough to outrun most NFL running backs, tight ends, etc. in a 100-yard sprint.

Olympic sprinters are not small or thin people at all. There muscle development is specific to the function of running. They don't need muscle development to push defensive linemen out of the way or to tackle.
In terms of being "big" (muscular) they are in comparison to other people. No one ever says that a sports car has a weak or small engine even though it can't move rocks like a dump truck.

 

[jobo]

I'm not familiar with those studies, but I've seen some evidence that agrees and disagrees all at once. I need to think about that a bit - my understanding may need updating.

However, it is my understanding that a good stretch (like good exercise) micro-damages a muscle. The muscle responds by building new fiber to bridge the micro-tears, resulting in (very gradually) longer muscles. Perhaps someone with a background in kinesiology can update/correct/confirm that.

That's not how muscles grow, at least not substantially either to increase length or volume, the problem with MICRO Tears is they are microscopic, how long would it take to increase the length of a muscle , by even an inch, in thousands of an inch increments ? If you want more elasticity in a muscle, which is what you want not greater length, then increasing its cross sectional area, is the way forward, particularly, increasing the amount of blood in the muscle

 

[pdg]

Compare sprinters to most marathoners - sprinters are typically more muscular by a significant margin. And, though I was pretty fast back in my 20's, I've never been fast enough to outrun most NFL running backs, tight ends, etc. in a 100-yard sprint.

Olympic sprinters are not small or thin people at all. There muscle development is specific to the function of running. They don't need muscle development to push defensive linemen out of the way or to tackle.
In terms of being "big" (muscular) they are in comparison to other people. No one ever says that a sports car has a weak or small engine even though it can't move rocks like a dump truck.

Sprinters tend to be bigger because of the way they need to develop explosive power for a short period of time.

They're generally pretty poor marathon runners though...

 

[jobo]

Sprinters tend to be bigger because of the way they need to develop explosive power for a short period of time.

They're generally pretty poor marathon runners though...

Well they will be if they don't train distance running, as will any one, Tri,athletes are both pretty chunky AND run a fair distance

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Sprinters tend to be bigger because of the way they need to develop explosive power for a short period of time.

They're generally pretty poor marathon runners though...

slightly different to running, but it's still analyzing a sprinter as opposed to a long-distance athlete. Basically what makes a good sprinter is long limbs combined with fantastic anaerobic capacity and power generation.