JohnC

The main issue with the way Aikido is taught is the concept that uke is supposed to 'help' tori do the techniques so that one can have 'harmonius practice'. Similarly there's no 'real' sparring. Bottom line is nothing ever gets stress tested to see if it really works. That doesn't mean Aikido doesn't work. It does mean you should go through a stress testing cycle to pick out the wheat from the chaff and to learn under what circumstances each technique can be expected to work at least 80% of the time or better. For example, try to grab a jab or cross properly delivered and see what happens. These techinques were developed in the land of Shotokan, where everybody chambers and thrusts. Thus, the operational assumptions don't travel very well. Nikyo is a bit subtle. Make sure you get all the angles right or it won't work very well and learn the shift to ikkyo or hiji-jime. Guys with high pain tolerance may not buckle and so operationally you should have a mechanical leverage based technique in reserve to take the guy down / break something. As for practice, take a look at this website: http://www.aikido3d.com/ I have their DVD and it's very well done. Although I do some of the techniques with variation, for a beginner it's a really good learning tool, in my opinion and well worth the money. As for me, I use Aikido for proportional, low - medium intensity self-defense responses where the attacker has made physical contact. My moves tend to be very short and sweet (i.e. I don't do any of the whirl the guy around three times before laying him down. In this my moves are closer to Japanese Jiu-Jutsu than Aiki-Jutsu.). Depending on the situation, I sometimes use Aikido moves as lead ins to more violent stuff (think Jason Bourne taking out the guards in the embassy in Bourne Identity). Hope this helps and hope you and yours are doing well.

A couple of comments: 1) The emphasis should be on the shoulder movement which, as mentioned, uses body weight, rather than arm strength, to move uke's arm to prep position. This implies uke must be allowed to grab so that tori can pin uke's hand against tori's shoulder. Any pure arm strength move implies tori is on par with uke in strength and thus sets up tori to fail against significantly larger / stronger opponents. Besides, if you're ahead of the game enough in timing / ability to be able to 'pick' uke's hand out of the air, why wouldn't you either simply hit him or back off, instead of grappling (loosely used) with him? 2) If you hadn't noticed, the prep position is the same for nikyo, so another response would be to go to prep, take uke down to knees with nikyo and then taisabaki to the outside while switching nikyo to ikkyo and taking uke to the ground face down. Although I realize this isn't the move you were practicing, from a practical standpoint I prefer this move because: Uke's line is forward and this move allows me to not go into direct opposition (the direction reversal in the video) with uke. It takes up less space and is a tad faster in execution, as you don't really step nikyo to ikkyo but rather flow it, using nikyo simply to force uke to start to drop. I limit the possibility of walking into something if I don't get the hold right or uke gets loose or uke has a high pain tolerance or uke doesn't follow along like he's supposed to or ...... It allows me to see what's behind me (e.g. his buddy) as I execute. It allows me, if my back's to the wall, to run him into it or his buddy (as mentioned above). I can always simply disengage once I've peeled uke's hand loose, as I'm always either extending uke or moving off his line. It's a lot easier to change holds if needed (e.g. ikko, nikyo, kote-gaeshi, hiji-jime), as I am consistently extending uke and have both hands / arms against his one hand / arm. I offer the above because of you guys being in LE.

BJJ flow drills help in this, coupled with focusing on the "positional" game while rolling. Keeping on folks to fight with their whole body, rather than only one piece (e.g. only arms). Lastly, Roman - Greco style (High School) wrestling has several drills that emphasize movement / mobility which can be adapted to groundwork (which your bio says you have experience in). Not sure if this is the level of detail that you're looking for.

Short form: Everyone has posted a take on the question. What are the operational impacts of your, and the other, opinions? In doing this kind of analysis, best approach is to define the extremes (binary either/or condition) then work inwards to understand the 'grey'. For example, Tallgeese, your approach, as you've already expressed, would cause serious operational issues within a traditional system because standardization would be lost. However, as Joesteph points out, the gimme for the getme is increased creativity. How are these conflicting goals balanced? In my opinion, these discussions break down into 4 inital positions: Martial Exercise (ME) - This is for people wanting to get / maintain a level of fitness without regard to the practical / competition applications of the movements (Taebo, Cardio Kickboxing and most McDojos fit here). Martial Sport (MS) - This is for people wanting to compete in rule based scenarios without regard to the street / combat applicability of the techniques. Martial Way (MW) - This is for people wanting to focus on traditional techniques / weapons / methods / etiquette / spiritual development without regard to whether those things are currently applicable or can be improved upon via modern approaches. Martial Art (MA) - This is for people wanting to be / become 'street lethal' without regard to style, tradition, etiquette, etc. Obviously, these definitions are extreme and most folks do some combination of the four. Each of the above starts from somewhat different assumptions and with somewhat different (sometimes diametrically opposed) objectives. Most of the discussion on forums centers around the conflict between these different assumptions / objectives. For example, the MA guy says only combat practical techniques should be taught while the ME guy doesn't care whether a technique works or not and the MS guy says the rules won't let me do that so why learn it and the MW guy says traditional things should still be taught regardless of present applicability because they are traditional. What I see is most folks really don't know, can't articulate and / or haven't really thought about where they are in the mix. As folks don't really have a clear set of objectives for their programs, it's no wonder that they can't express how to optimally teach them (i.e. define content, curriculum and pedagogy). Similarly, the closer one is to an extreme, the more one essentially believes the assumptions / objectives of the other groups don't matter or aren't relevant. (For example, RBSD folks basically say why train for a match fight when real fights typically last less than 8 seconds. Thus, all ME, MS, MW and much of MA simply drop out. Put bluntly, the approach is: learn how to do a power slap, be sneaky and you can take on the world. Similarly, your stance that an instructor has no responsibility to guide the student to spirtual / moral enlightenment, drops out a whole series of things embedded in the MW approach). To be effective teachers, I'd argue, one must know the 'why' of content, curriculum, and pedagogy before one can develop the what and how. To know the why, one must also come to grips with what the student wants to learn in addition to what the teacher wants to teach. This has significant impacts upon what is abstracted from the knowledge base, how it is formatted for presentation and how it is sequenced. For example, Kodokan judo teaches Seio Nage (shoulder throw), Seio Goshi (hip throw) and Tai Otoshi (cross body drop) at different belt levels and as stand alone techniques, ignoring that the body mechanics of the entries are essentially the same and operationally they are essentially the same technique applied to opponents of different heights (taller, same, shorter, respectively). This is driven by the MW approach that all throws should be executed against all types of opponents (regardless of shape, size, etc). I argue that to be effectively taught, the three throws should be taught together so that the student's focus is in learning the body mechanics for a 'family' of throws, thus significantly shortening the ramp up time. However, that comes from my serious MA bent (also, I would never teach / use seio nage, for example, for use against an opponent a foot shorter than I am, as I would probably injure my back. I don't much care what the Kodokan's MW approach requires.) . My purpose for the topic was to see where folks were with regards to balancing these competing ideas, the approaches they used in developing how their arts are taught to fulfill the balanced objectives and where they stood on the mix.

Bottom line: I spent most of 2 hours composing a reply to everyone on this topic. Even though I took a copy the board essentially crapped out the original when I tried to preview it and, as it locked into a loop trying to continually download advertisements, it killed the copy too, as I couldn't paste the copy before having to kill IE to get out of the loop. I really don't have the time to recompose it. Thanks to everyone for your input and discussion.

Thanks for the responses. Based upon them, Should the teacher be expected to develop content and / or customize (select / format / change) content based upon course goals, or should the teacher only teach the curriculum set out and approved by the organization? When the teacher prepares classes, should the teacher customize the lesson plans based upon what the student wants to learn or what the teacher wants to teach (assuming they are not the same)? A different way of saying might be: if the student trusts the teacher to guide him / her to the right way, shouldn't the student's goals be considered / added to the selection of content / its presentation and sequencing? Should the teacher be expected to not only have a broad and deep understanding of the subject, but also to have the same level of understanding of teaching / training / coaching theory (i.e. good practitioners don't necessarily make good teachers, and vice versa)? If so, should the teacher be tasked with using that knowledge to continually improve HOW the subject is taught?

I use Saturday as an "Open" class from 10 - 12. I work on anything the students want to work on, in groups / one-on-one / whatever. It's a time for the students to focus on what they perceive to be their weak points. Additionally, with certain students, it's a time where I can work on what I want to so that I can get in at least some quality work out time and not have to always focus on the teaching.

Out of curiousity, how would you define the role of the teacher? What exactly does a teacher do that adds value to the student / teacher relationship?

If you can turn the foot toes up, jump towards the opponent, bending the knee then drive the foot down to the ground breaking the grip. Usually a hand strike is added to take the opponent's mind off the foot hold. If your foot is to the side and can't be turned upward, as mentioned above, jump in and scissor the opponent's legs out from under him (Judo's Kani Waza). If your foot is pointed downwards, deliver a spin heel kick to the opponent's head with the free leg, forcing a defensive move to release the foot. These are the standard defenses I use against a foot grab by the opponent's hands. A grab that is tucked under the opponent's arm is more difficult to defend as the grip is more solid and mobility is less. If the above won't work, I usually grab the opponent with my lead hand and then swing my hips in, using the free foot to attack the opponent's knees / ankles and/or take the opponent to the ground, negating the hold on the way down. Sometimes a Hollywood move can work. For example, if the opponent is in a karate style stance (shiko or kiba dachi). One can literally step up on the lead thigh with the free leg and either attack or bowl the opponent over, freeing the foot as part of the action. My first pass thoughts.

Your post implies all other things are equal. You might want to make sure that's true. That is, do you get the same amount of sleep the night before, do you eat the same kind of stuff the same amount of time before class, etc? Also, you might check if there's some sort of stress / anxiety that's only happening before / in that particular class. For example, your post implies that the fitness studio class is the last of the three classes you take per week. It's possible that you're overtraining and you're simply worn out by the end of the week, especially if you're not getting enough sleep and/or aren't eating properly. If all that comes up OK, then I'd counsel that you probably should see a qualified doctor, as there are all sorts of things that could cause the symptoms you describe and long distance diagnosis probably isn't the best approach. Hope this helps.

In my opinion there is a difference between "respect" which means "to treat with special consideration, to hold in high regard" and "courtesy" which means "kind and thoughtful behavior toward another, politeness". In a civilized society courtesy should be freely given and expected. As you say, B96, respect, on the other hand, must be earned. To demand respect is a non sequitur by definition, even if 'most' seem to do it now-a-days.

I'd caution however that the appropriate / best targets change sans the weapon. For example, you probably can more easily reach / effectively strike the collar bone with a stick in the fight, why would you want to with a hammerfist (as there probably would be a lot more effective techniques / targets available)? This is a fundamental problem of using the one size fits all approach -- it simplifies overall training but leads to sub-optimal solutions as, in reality, arms are not spears and hands are not swords.

An unexpected honor. Thanks to all.

Three books you might find interesting: Zen Catholicism by Dom Aelred Graham Jesus & Buddha, The Parallel Sayings editted by Marcus Borg. Zen Spirit, Christian Spirit, The Place of Zen in Christian Life by Robert E. Kennedy

Personally, I use low belt (White / Yellow) one-steps to teach prepared basic self-defense (e.g. wrist grab, choke) responses and to get the student to begin doing scenario analysis (i.e. what would I do if an attacker did X). Above Yellow, I don't really 'teach' one steps. Instead I use them more for dynamic application of technique, rather than prepared responses, which become more randomized with each belt. For example, for testing Green the student must respond to 5 random striking / holding attacks. For testing Brown, 5 random striking / holding / takedown attacks. For Black, strikes / holds / takedowns / weapons (and combinations of these) are all fair game. In training, the attacker is very generally limited to attacking appropriately to the defender's knowledgebase / belt level, attacking in a realistic way (i.e. Hollywood moves are out) and the attack can only be one or two moves. (As a note, my students are taught pre-emptive strike so attacks rarely can be more than one or two moves. For example, for Black the attacker might attempt a strike to the head and then point a gun at the defender's chest.) In my view this trains the student to quckly determine the kind of attack and implement an effective solution but also does not program the student to respond to certain attacks in specified ways that may not be appropriate to the actual situation (e.g. I believe this was pointed out on another thread that a defense technique wasn't working very well because the attacker was too tall for it to be executed).

FitOrDie, I don't believe we're on the same page. To broaden your base a bit, I'd suggest that you look at: "Athletic Body in Balance, Optimal Movement Skills and Conditioning for Performance" by Gray Cook and "Athletic Development, The Art & Science of Functional Sports Conditioning" by Vern Gambetta. To the Forum, (caveat: the below is a rant to some extent.) The above discussion does bring up an issue that I see on several threads which is: trying to train to an open-ended goal (e.g. be as strong as possible, 'master' an art). To me, this type of training can't be done (and I'm not being facetious). Consistently I read folks saying they want to attain a state they can't define nor measure and then get into arguments about the best way to attain that state. As a coach, I learned a long time ago that I can't develop a meaningful training plan if I don't know fairly rigorously what the end state is supposed to be and have a way to measure whether I succeeded or failed to meet the goal(s). "Health and Fitness" is a perfect example, as can be seen above, in that if one asks a hundred people to define the terms, one would probably expect little detailed agreement in the answers. Additionally, I see a general ignoring of limitations. For example, a thread was "how to fight a body builder". To me, if you've optimized your fighting ability, you'd fight a body builder the same way you'd fight anyone else. But the hidden question here is: how do you fight someone that inherently has overwhelming advantage (i.e. asymetric battle) and the answer is: if you can't run and you can't cheat, you do the best you can and then die gloriously. Point is: I don't see language that points to something like: the MAist's objective is to optimize his / her fighting ability by achieving the best operational balance between technical ability, functional athleticism, mental toughness, etc via specific, focused training of those attributes within his / her personal constraints of time, money and life obligations. Such a statement inherently recognizes that most folks can gain substantially from doing MA without the hidden assumption that they at some point should be able to take on Randy Coture, Bruce Lee and 27 ninjas in a dark alley and win (and here I'm deliberately being obtuse because, although many times unstated, this type of scenario is implied as the end state in several topics). As this is the 'training' forum, in my opinion, to develop a viable training plan it's critical to understand the student's environmental and personal limitations and focus the training to achieve optimal results across the student base. For example, the Marine Corp's Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) is a focused close quarter combat training that must be imparted to young, fast, strong, agile marines within less than TWO WEEKS of operational training. One might argue that the training time is too short but GIVEN THAT CONSTRAINT I think it's a very well thought out program. In my opinion MA instructors spend far too much time arguing over esoterica, while simply defaulting to the 'traditional' ways of teaching MA, instead of utilizing proven principles of sports science to take MA training to the next level both for themselves and their students. This, to me, cop out is reflected in the, to me, generally poor quality of training in the industry and the student's generally poor ability to perform. (Mind I enjoy coffee shop arguments over esoterica But I don't think they should be operationalized into the training.) Time and time again when I ask instructors about their art's curriculum, pedagogy and training theory (not using those terms of course ), they haven't a clue. All they can tell me is "first we teach a front kick and then a roundhouse kick" or "a black belt in our style must be able to perform all of the techniques below black belt rank" (notice no mention of level of performance or attributes of black belt performance vs. below black belt performance or any other 'bar' to be cleared. This operationally, many times, defaults to being able to go through the motions, sans speed, power, focus, balance, etc. Is it any wonder that there is so much variability between "black belts", even within styles much less across styles.) In closing, "training", to me, is not just showing up, getting hot and sweaty and going home. If you can't point to at least one thing in EACH and EVERY SESSION that has improved your performance for all time, then you're not training, you're doing something else. I once lived in an area where young men would play basketball several times a week. I watched these folks for several years and found remarkable that although they played a lot of ball, they didn't really ever get any better. Their abilities didn't improve. In my opinion, each one of us should ask ourselves several times a year: "What specifically do I do significantly better now than I did X months ago?". That, to me, is one of the ways over time that you operationally 'master' an art. I"ll go back to sleep now. Thanks for reading.

FitOrDie, In defining terms, I'd begin with general fitness then progress to sport specific fitness. Although I agree that "work capacity over broad time and modal domains" is part of fitness. I'm not sure it covers all aspects. For example, work capacity may or may not include efficient bio-mechanical movement. For example, someone may be strong enough to lift a load X times but still be lifting the load inefficiently. Is this person fit or not? (i.e. Does fitness have a quality component in addition to the quantity component?) The suggestion is that one must be strong to be fit. Please define "strong". At what point do we say that fellow is "strong" and the other fellow is "weak"? Is there a point where we say the fellow is "strong" enough?Although you suggest that we need to define terms, I only saw examples of what you say fitness is not. Please define "fitness" so that I can understand what you mean by the term. In your posts you seem to feel that weight training, specifically, should be the primary modality for most any kind of "fitness" and seem to put "being strong" as the decider for almost any situation. Even if I agreed (which I don't, especially with regards to stand up MA training), this seems a very lopsided way to train any functional ability (outside of lifting weights many times) much less any technical ability. (By the by, I only recommend bodybuilder type exercises to bodybuilders. Having done weight training for over 40 years, my approach, at least I like to think, is a bit more informed than simply following the latest magazine article's recommendations.) Lastly, I'd be interested in the research proving that 20 minute weight workouts significantly improve aerobic capacity. More importantly, I'd be real interested to see any research that, even if you're right, shows that using weight workouts are preferable to other methods of training aerobic capacity. Look forward to your reply.

There I disagree. Strength is a part of fitness, and weights can certainly illicit fitness in more than just that way. Google a workout called "fran" and tell me what you think. Please read the entire posting. I repeat "If you want to get fit weight training isn't the best approach. There are other training modalities that will get you 'fit' much quicker and more completely than weight training." I agree strength is part of fitness, etc. But weight training, imo, isn't the best way to 'get fit'.

I disagree. Remember growth occurs during the recovery period NOT the exercise period. Doing 4 - 5 sessions per week means that your recovery is limited to around 24 hours and I don't believe your body recovers that fast at these intensities. I'd hazard that you'll be overtraining and betting that the 6 weeks will end before you injure yourself. To me this is a sucker bet. The 9 week schedule I suggested includes 1 - 2 weeks for you to baseline (2 - 4 sessions). Thus, you're in training mode for 7 - 8 weeks. Then you move onto other training (which includes a maintenance component, which may be a cross-training or a different kind of resistance training) My two cents. PS. Again I quibble with the language "get fit". If you want to get fit weight training isn't the best approach. There are other training modalities that will get you 'fit' much quicker and more completely than weight training. IMO, weight training is to get stronger, period.

Not quite. You should keep weight in the 3 - 8 reps bandwidth. Start with a weight that you can do 5 - 6 reps. When you get into the 7 - 8 reps area then increase the weight into the 3 - 4 reps area and repeat the cycle. The reason for the ranges is that weight increases are dictated by the available equipment increments. Yes, the last one should be to failure. Idea is to do one set that you really push, as you know there's only one set. Make sure you do rigorous form with good support. The idea is to do serious training NOT just push weight. Stay with weights that you can control throughout the exercise, not just in the middle. Additionally, don't explode the weight, do a clean rep (usually taking 2 - 3 seconds per rep). Force yourself to really WORK the weight. Yes, you should use the concepts for all your strength training exercises. Usually easiest for most folks is to do circuit training, if you have access to the machinery. Start with big muscle exercises (e.g. bench press) and then move to small muscle exercises (e.g. bicep curls). Again train motion not muscle, so if you do a pushing motion exercise make sure you also do a pulling motion exercise. Sometimes you have to get creative on this due to lack of appropriate equipment at your gym. Using free weights is fine. However, they introduce stabilization issues not found in the machinery. Thus, if you're going to use free weights, start with lower weights and be very strict until you're sure you have the dynamics solid. The issue here is that you're working close to maximums so a mistake probably will result in injury (which is one of the reasons why personal trainers rarely go down this path). Pay attention to business. In general, no I don't recommend multiple sets for strength training (other objectives (e.g. rehabilitation) are different). Caveat is I don't use weight training to try and affect other objectives (e.g. "get in shape", cardio), using other types of training modalities instead. Hope this helps. Please feel free to PM me if you want more depth and/or to let me know how you're doing.

As an addendum, if the above experiment establishes my bona fides then we'll talk about endurance, cardio, etc.

B96, A few comments: First, strength training is to increase STRENGTH. nothing else. One problem is folks want to expect resistance training to do all sorts of other things and it won't / shouldn't. Second, to increase strength one must trigger the body's adaptation response or growth won't occur. This means you have to work above 80% of max (roughly pushing a weight in the 3 - 8 reps range, where the last rep is failure). Once the adaptation trigger is pulled, it's pulled. No scientific testing has shown that multiple sets accomplish much except reduce the intensity you're willing to put into the first set (which means you probably won't work hard enough (i.e. > 80%) in any set to throw the adaptation trigger and you won't make very many gains). This is why circuit training was developed. Third, the secret to training is intensity. One must work with intensity to get results. Intensity is a combination of frequency, duration and required effort. These factors can be manipulated so that even if you aren't working at a high on one (e.g. some days you got it and some days you don't), you can manipulate the others so that you can get a workout. Additionally it helps generate new ways of working so that things don't get boring. As mentioned above, if you work with intensity, your head has to be in the workout. If you've got distractors normally, then odds are you're not working hard enough. Good news is this means workouts don't have to be long nor every day (in fact needed recovery time dictates 2 to 3 times per week is best). Bad news is, this is hard and physically demanding. Fourth, one should train motion not muscle and should generally train full range of motion. For example, the push / pull motions at chest level are done via bench press (push) and row (pull). The push / pull motions above the head are done by military press (push) and lat pulldown (pull). This insures that one keeps all the muscles used in the motion in balance. One of the common reasons for injury is that folks don't do strict motion because they get to push more weight and stroke their egos. However this leads to an imbalance between the big driver muscles and the little stablizer muscles, which leads to injury. Injury means you can't train and thus lose all gains. Which obviously is a bad idea . Listen to your body. If things aren't going right, STOP. As mentioned above, there's always another day. Fifth, as mentioned above strength gains occur during recovery not exercise. That is, during exercise you tear the muscle down and it responds by growing bigger / stronger to handle the new workload during recovery. Thus you need to insure proper recovery times. I recommend 48 - 72 hours between sessions. Similarly, one shouldn't do the same set of exercises month after month because the body never gets to FULLY recover. So, you should do a training run for around 6 - 9 weeks ( I do 9 - 12 because I'm old ) and then switch to some other emphasis so the body can consolidate the gains. You'll lose some of the gains but will start the next run at a higher level and make more gains each time. For example, I started leg press at roughly my body weight (190 lbs at the time). 18 months (roughly 5 cycles) later I reached my personal best of 4 times body weight (roughly 760 lbs) 1 set 6 reps. Sixth, as with all this, training is driven by objectives. You say you want to get stronger. Why? What functional ability does getting stronger add? Point is, you need to be much more detailed in the objectives to be able to generate a work out plan. In general, martial artists need to have dense hard muscles (like gymnasts) rather than big, showy ones (e.g. body builders). Thus, power lifter training (relatively high weight, low reps, no sets) is more appropriate than body builder training (relatively low weight, high reps, multiple sets). Last, you don't know me and I may be simply spouting pap, so try this experiment. Pick a motion that you believe needs to be strengthened (for example bench press). Set aside 8 weeks (16 to 20 sessions). Do good quality full range presses (including proper breathing and using good core) and find a weight that you can do 5 - 6 reps at as base line (let's say 150 lbs). Do one set per session and really push that set so that the last rep ends in failure (i.e. you can't quite complete the rep or you know that you certainly won't make another one). Rest for 3 days (72 hours) and do it again (i.e. 2 sessions per week roughly). Any time you can do 7 - 8 reps kick the weight up so that you're back in the 4 - 5 range (this should be happening roughly every 2 - 3 sessions). Expectation is that in 8 weeks you should increase your strength 25 - 50 % ( i.e. at end you should be pushing between 185 - 225 lbs in this example). If you find I'm right then expand the concepts to other exercises. If I'm wrong write this off as being another would be hot shot. Let me know what happens Hope this helps.

Sounds like you're in the same boat I am. Endurance is a product of muscle ability to function and cardio ability to feed the muscle so it can function (a fancy way of saying strength and wind ). These work together but usually you need to train them separately and then pull them back together. Short burst (anaerobic) activity relies almost entirely on muscle ability (and glycogen (energy) stores within the muscle). Endurance (aerobic) activity brings much more cardio to bear in fueling the muscle for long periods. To level set, I'd suggest that you get on the elliptical and pick a resistance level you can comfortably maintain for 20 - 30 minutes at 60 RPM. Don't strain, this is just to set a base level. Then, at that resistance level and tracking results, increase RPMs by 5 rpm a step at 5 minute intervals until you can't make 5 minutes (i.e. your heart rate is consistently over your max rate. To be strict you should do a 5 minute run, rest and then do another 5 minutes to avoid the cumulative effect). If you can maintain pace for 5 mins up to around 80 RPM then your cardio is probably fine for MA (although you should begin your training doing something active for as long as a class period. For example, boxers are told to do 5 miles of road work. Why 5? Well a pro fight is 15 - 3 minute rounds with 1 minute rest. That is 45 minutes of fighting with 15 minutes of rest = 1 hour. 5 - 12 minute miles (fast jog / slow run) takes 60 minutes (i.e. 1 hour) ) In my opinion every martial artist, at whatever level of performance they happen to be at, should at least be able to maintain activity for an entire class. But that's just me ) Next, start at your base resistance and maintaining 60 RPM track and increase the resistance in 5 minute chunks until you can't make 5 minutes (i.e. heart rate > max). This will let you know how you're muscular endurance is working. At the end if you're at the max resistance of the machine then your endurance is probably fine. Fighting takes high anaerobic capacity, quick recovery times (a function of aerobic capacity) and pacing. These items are significantly affected by stress. To test this, do intervals by starting at your base resistance and, after warm up, start a two minute timer, kick the resistance to around your top level and pick the pace up a bit. Then, watch your heart to see how fast it climbs to your max. Then back down pace and resistance as necessary to maintain your max for the 2 minute run. After two minutes stop and time how fast your heart rate falls to 80% of max. This is your recovery rate. For example, for me it takes 3 minutes for me to recover from a 2 minute burst (hence the five minute intervals I used in my example). Your's will probably be different but the above is to level set. You can customize as necessary. For fighting you want to maximize your ability to hit max heart rate and then maintain that rate of activity for 90 seconds to 2 minutes (this is what "all out" means from a training perspective. As a comment, because the vast majority of folks never try this experiment, they really have no idea physically what all out means and so rarely actually go all out). And minimize how long it takes you to recover. (How one trains for this is fairly complex and not something I can tell you in a post.) If you find that you can do the above relatively well, then your burn out may be a function of stress rather than physical ability. In this condition, you need to identify the stressors and deal with them. Hope this helps.

You and most other folks that show up to the gym. Additionally, there's a lot of confusing information out there, sometimes done in good faith but due to objectives being different and/or legal considerations entering into it (for example, caveat: I am not a doctor so all information given is used at your own risk and should be validated by a licensed competent physician before being attempted ). Be careful with "personal trainers", to state part of the definition given in "the American College of Sports Medicine's (ACSM) "Resources for the Personal Trainer" (2nd Edition) "A personal trainer is proficient in ..... leading and demonstrating safe and effective methods of exercise, and motivating individuals to begin and to continue with their healthy behaviors." or said another way personal trainers help enable clients to live a healthy lifestyle (upon which agreement in detail is very hard to come by ). The operative words are "safe" and "healthy lifestyle". However what happens many times operationally is that the above translates into "no risk and no possibility of injury" which essentiallly leads to ineffective workouts. In contrast a "coach's" objective is to make you excellent at your chosen sport. IMO, if you want to get good you need a coach not a personal trainer. That said, physical training is driven from specific training objectives / goals not "need to work out". Thus, the first question is what do you want to get better at? and why? For example, in my example above I identified that my strength endurance wasn't good enough so I specifically designed something to address that weakness and then began training it. This is a very different mindset than "let's go pump some iron". So, you need to look at your entire ability to perform and (probably with discussion with your instructor) identify one or two things that will boost you to a 'whole 'nother level' of performance. Then train those things. Knowledge is many times as hard won as skill. It usually means you have to work through a lot a chaff to get a few kernals of wheat. As a beginning, you might take a read through "Athletic Development, The Art & Science of Functional Sports Conditioning" by Vern Gambetta, published by Human Kinetics. It's a good all around primer. It's on Amazon for around $16 delivered. If you want to continue then start looking in the "health and nutrition" sections of most bookstores for books on "sports science". Athletic Development will give you an understanding of WHY exercise is done and how each kind of exercise trains the body. To be effective the right kind of training must be matched to the objective. For example, using weights to increase aerobic capacity (something I've actually heard some personal trainers say) borders on being just plain silly. Yes, I would recommend using a heart rate monitor. The reason a heart monitor is good is that it gives you actual feedback on how your body is performing during cardio exercise. Other measures (e.g. blood pressure, oxygen uptake) are also important but require expensive gear and are a pain to measure during exercise. For training purposes I use the following scale to measure intensity. Take 220 and subtract you age. This gives you your top training heart rate. Then: 90% - 100% = Anaerobic 80% - 90% = Aerobic 70% - 80% = Recovery Below 70% = Cool Down For me at 55, this leads to heartbeat ranges of: 148 - 165 Anaerobic 132 - 147 Aerobic 115 - 131 Recovery Please realize that these are general rules of thumb and can change significantly for a particular individual based upon age, condition, weight, health, etc. One last thought: true anaerobic intensity can't be sustained past about 2 minutes. Thus we do interval training. When working at these intensities, you risk hurting yourself if you don't pay attention (i.e. keep your head in the workout and disappear the distractions). Learn to listen to your body and if you feel something isn't right then STOP. There's a difference between discomfort and pain. Be gentle with yourself while still pushing to achieve your goals. Training is a life time habit and that means there's always tomorrow to come back and try again. If you're not up to it today, schedule a session for tomorrow. Just make sure you show up Hope this helps.

I happen to have a Nike but pretty much any of the name brand combination chest strap / wrist watch units will probably do the job.