Gym routines

[DWx]

Had my first session in the gym today. Didn't really get around to doing anything serious as was just getting used to the machines. I have a feel for what intensities I should be working at as at the moment am not really feeling like I had a hard workout session even though I was doing above what the guy recommended to start at.

Actually the guy doing my induction said that if I want to get fitter, I ought to do 4-5 heavy sessions a week for 6 weeks and then slow it down to 2 sessions a week to maintain. Opinions on this? I was originally planning to do 2-3 sessions a week but do this every week.

[JohnC]

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.

[FitOrDie]

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.

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.

[JohnC]

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.

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'.

[FitOrDie]

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.

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'.

Perhaps then, we should define fitness. Some people think that fitness is jogging, and that marathon runners or triathletes are the most fit people in the world. But those people have no strength or power- they cannot lift, jump, punch, or even sprint hard at all. By the same notion, powerlifters and olympic weighlifters are the "strongest" people in the world, by the standard of completing a heavy lift of some sort, but they have no endurance to speak of. I could go on.

I prefer crossfit's standard of fitness: "work capacity over broad time and modal domains." So simple, so brilliant. The ability to generate power (force multiplied by distance over time, F*d/t, or, how fast can you move a given load) in various ways over a ten second period, a minute, ten minutes, an hour... Are you really fit if you can move tremendous loads in just a couple seconds, but nothing worth mentioining over thirty minutes? Or vice versa, running a marathon in record time but not being able to jump more than two inches?

To be fit, of course you must be strong, but that is not the end of it. However, without strength, you will never be fit anyway. And weights do not only develop strength, they are useful for conditioning as well. Consider this workout: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IMigc9XICQ. It is called grace, it is 30 clean and jerks for time. You move a load fo 135# from the ground to over your head 30 times, imagine the power output! Moving so much weight so far in so little time. Can match such activity without weights?

Consider also Fran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVBgKB4Gnsw. the barbell thruster seen in this video is the most draining exercise I have ever even heard of, and it is performed 45 times total, as is the pullup. Moving your bodyweight so far 45 times, then 45times again PLUS a 95# barbell all the way overhead... Something like 40,000 foot-pounds of work completed, in around five minutes or less once you really start becoming fit. Some people do it in less than three! You have to be strong to be able to put out so much power, to do so much work in so little time. And no amount of jogging, or running and sprinting of any kind, will enable you to workout so hard, I promise.

Further conditioning exercises might include kettlebell swings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhG4FcJxlvQ&feature=PlayList&p=10148D70C2132831&playnext=1&index=10, or the one armed snatch, seen at the beginning of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57pv_1j4dH0. All involve weights, and all are superior conditioning movements. Do i say never run? Of course not! But to deny yourself weights, to consider them any less than than the best strength AND metabolic conditioning tool would seem wrong after all I have just shown you.

What I believe (and I might be wrong, but I doubt it) you are thinking of is a bodybuilding routine. Exercise machines, bicep curls, all that nonsense. That is no way to get fit at all, but if you do it right, a barbell with some weights, and a pull-up bar, and your own body, are all the equipment you need to become fit at a world class level. And maybe some shoes, I guess.

[tallgeese]

I've been a big proponant of the crossfit regimine for quite awhile on these boards, and I really do think that for ma-ist's it's really one of the most effective programs out there. I've certainly seen an improvement in my game after utilizing it for a time.

However, people that are big into certain regimines can lose sight of the fact that they can be limiting in certain regards. Yes, workouts like fran allow you to generate immense amounts of power. For ma's this in highly important. However, to use crossfit protocols alone to do a more sustained activity is not necissarily the best tool either.

It's all about looking at what you're doing and fitting your workout to that activity. Crossfit gives you a great base to work from across a wide set of demands, and again, combative demands are met very well by their protocols.

However, use mountaineering as an example, to adaquatly prepare for a task like this, you're going to need to change your routine up to address those specific concerns. Whlie, you could continue to crossfit as a core, you're going to need to add addtional longer, more sustained workouts on the treadmill, stepper, or hills. Ideally, integrating these with the shorther duration crossfit training to simulate the demands of technical climbing.

From experiance, relying too much on a crossfit type work out at the expense of higer duratino training can indeed be detrimental to one's overal conditioning for such an event.

I guess my point is that fitness is largely definded by your given activity. As such, for combat athletes, crossfit is excellent. However, another kind of athlete, as you've pointed out, will have a different need base. This should be addressed by catering to what they need for success of the activity.

Weight routines certainly have their place if your goal is body building type of development. Again, I agree that for most of us, this is not synonomous with our fitness concept. But it is the goal for many people.

For me, I find useing a crossfit base for the bulk of my activities is a relly good thing. What I've also found is that when I plan a big mountain trip I have to scale it back and pick up more traditional cardio and steep simulators.

[FitOrDie]

I've been a big proponant of the crossfit regimine for quite awhile on these boards, and I really do think that for ma-ist's it's really one of the most effective programs out there. I've certainly seen an improvement in my game after utilizing it for a time.

However, people that are big into certain regimines can lose sight of the fact that they can be limiting in certain regards. Yes, workouts like fran allow you to generate immense amounts of power. For ma's this in highly important. However, to use crossfit protocols alone to do a more sustained activity is not necissarily the best tool either.

It's all about looking at what you're doing and fitting your workout to that activity. Crossfit gives you a great base to work from across a wide set of demands, and again, combative demands are met very well by their protocols.

However, use mountaineering as an example, to adaquatly prepare for a task like this, you're going to need to change your routine up to address those specific concerns. Whlie, you could continue to crossfit as a core, you're going to need to add addtional longer, more sustained workouts on the treadmill, stepper, or hills. Ideally, integrating these with the shorther duration crossfit training to simulate the demands of technical climbing.

From experiance, relying too much on a crossfit type work out at the expense of higer duratino training can indeed be detrimental to one's overal conditioning for such an event.

I guess my point is that fitness is largely definded by your given activity. As such, for combat athletes, crossfit is excellent. However, another kind of athlete, as you've pointed out, will have a different need base. This should be addressed by catering to what they need for success of the activity.

Weight routines certainly have their place if your goal is body building type of development. Again, I agree that for most of us, this is not synonomous with our fitness concept. But it is the goal for many people.

For me, I find useing a crossfit base for the bulk of my activities is a relly good thing. What I've also found is that when I plan a big mountain trip I have to scale it back and pick up more traditional cardio and steep simulators.

I agree. While I make the point that a few weights will go a long way and then some, every now and then, you do have to go for a long jog. And, if you are a boxer, for instance, you have to put your time in practicing skills- sparring, heavy bag, focus pads, etc. If you are planning on climbing a mountain, the same applies- practice for it!

Still, it should be known that workouts from the brief but intense Fran to a longer, twenty minute intense workout... will still increase long distance, aerobic capacity. This has been proven by more organizations than I can count. And such workouts will do so with the added benefit of NOT burning muscle. I have found that no matter what, the "traditional" cardio only hurts me when done more than occasionally. But then, I admit, I don't run marathons.

All this aside, my original point remains: weights of some sort- barbells, dumbbells, kettlebells, or just sand bags, are a necessary tool in becoming truly fit. You cannot ignore them. Especially for anyone concerned with fighting. Just don't work out like a body builder.

[JohnC]

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.

[FitOrDie]

First, I maintain that my definition: work capacity over broad time and modal domains, is fitness, completely. What you speak of is not fitness so much as skill. Sport specific fitness isn't a type of fitness, it is a type of specialization. Take a baseball player who has the strength, power, and coordination to hit a home run a third of the time he's up to bat. Very talented, some aspects of fitness, but if he's also a little tubby, and can't even run to first base (his top speed is "jog"), would you call him fit? Partially, I'll concede that. Partially fit, but not truly fit. Now take a guy with the same strength and power, and better endurance, than that baseball player, who always strikes out. He does not strike out for lack of fitness, only talent/skill. You need some or all aspects of fitness in order to execute certain athletic skills well... but you always will also need the skill to do it.

To define "strong" is difficult, because the English language is inadequate. There are many types of strength, and people can have one without the other. Absolute strength, speed strength, endurance strength, power, more I'm probably forgetting... And it's hard to say when is strong enough. To generalize, I say, as strong as you can get without sacrificing other capacities.

Let's take a very fit, fictional example. (Yes, I am making up the numbers, but if you found an example like mine in real life, I'd bet good money that my numbers wouldn't be far off). Let's say that his max deadlift is 500#, his max clean and jerk is 300#, he can run 3 miles in less than 20 min, he can do Grace (30 135# clean and jerks) in 3 min, and Angie (100 pull-ups, 100 push-ups, 100 sit-ups, and 100 squats, in that order) in 12 min. This is clearly a very fit person. Now if he were to decide that he wants to be stronger, and get his max deadlift to 700#, what might happen? Suppose he does so, but then he can only run 3 miles in 45 min, he can only do Grace in 10 min, and Angie in 28. Maybe even still his clean and jerk went up to 350#. Is he more fit? I would say no, because he sacrificed great performances for fair at best, sub-novice levels in most categories, all for one thing- the ten second or less category absolute strength and power. He can now lift big heavy weights, but that's all he has. If he were a powerlifter or olympic lifter-a specialist- it would be worth it. For those seeking fitness, martial artists perhaps, it would not.

I emphasize weightlifting so much in my posts for two reasons: first, because without strength, in all its forms, you cannot consider yourself fit; and second, because it was earlier stated that there were better modalities for obtaining more and more complete fitness. I point out that weights are probably the most diverse and all-encompassing single tool, even more than your own body weight, when obtaining fitness. Traditional cardio can only build cardio endurance, less efficiently. Sure, things like sprints will build strength as well as metabolic endurance, better than jogging; but it will not build strength nearly as much as weights, and weights can build incredible metabolic endurance, rivaling the sprinters and conquering outright the results of joggers. Nothing quite jacks your heart rate like the barbell thrusters I mentioned, believe me. Of course I believe in various types of running, but if I had to make a choice between my tennis shoes and my weight set, I'd take the weight set. I wouldn't consider it "the" primary modality of obtaining fitness, but it is certainly "a" primary modality. Probably the most singly useful modality, if done right.

Now, as far as improving aerobic capacity, sure, long distance stuff like jogging, cycling, etc. will work. But at the cost of everything else- it eats muscle, for one. However- and it doesn't have to be weights (although I have weight workouts that will make your lungs burn like you wouldn't believe)- training at unsustainable levels will increase aerobic AND anaerobic capacities. It has been observed time and again that the aerobic capacity of sprinters closely matches that of marathon runners. Their V02 max ratings are close if not the same. Technically, I'm doing aerobics as I type this response right now. My primary fuel is oxygen, and I can sustain this rate of activity for hours and hours. But consider this: a weight workout such as Grace, above, or this one: "5 barbell thrusters, 7 hang power cleans, 10 sumo deadlift high pulls (google it), as many rounds as possible in 20 min," will leave you so out of breath that you have to lie down to recover enough to talk in less than 5 min. I don't even want to think about "fight gone bad." Just because oxygen isn't the primary fuel doesn't mean that you don't need a whole lot of it. Your cardio-respiratory system is most definitely improved upon. Now consider jogging at your highest sustainable for an hour or more, and how out of breath are you? Aerobic capacity is definitely challenged, despite it being anaerobic activity, in certain types of 20 min weight workout and I personally have found that such workouts have dramatically increased my ability to keep up with my cycling-fanatic wife.

[JohnC]

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.