Building muscle that directly applies to fighting!

[JusticeZero]

Anyone who gains muscle mass while slowing down will be an edge case. You have to be doing a lot of very specific min-maxey things for a very long time to achieve it. It's a little bit like suggesting to someone that they "Walk around and explore" only to have them complain "But I might end up in Tijuana!" Well... not by accident you won't.

[MasterPain]

For a good function strength workout, check out Matt Furey's Combat Conditioning. From what I remember, it was mostly hindu squats, hindu pushups, and bridges. There were other exercises, but those were the big 3. The guy breaks the myth of being "musclebound."

[xo-karate]

I agree totally with MasterPain and JusticeZero but still I'm proposing something to think about.

First gymnastics - dudes are fairly muscular but not over big? Would more muscle give an advantage?

I think some kind of answer -- an exaggeration of course - can be found in runners. Again 100 meter runners are fairly muscular, 800 meter runners not so much and 10000 meter runners are skinny. So there is some kind of optimum muscle mass to move you - depending on how long you have to move. In combat sports, it might about 3 - 5 minutes?

And repeating it 3 - 5 times in a tournament:-)

[JusticeZero]

In all those cases, a lot of the muscle development you see is actually a result of training that specific activity.

Long distance runners develop slow twitch muscle that doesn't bulk up, is not explosive (and so of limited use in doing fast, explosive attacking movements), but which happily keeps ticking along after a lot of time. They develop it mainly by, well, running long distances. But musclebuilding exercises still help them in other ways.

Gymnasts have to worry about things like square-cube law and the like, and so reducing their total mass even at the cost of total strength is a valid goal in and of itself for them. They do a lot of bodyweight exercise where losing eight pounds of weight but simultaneously lowering the amount of weight they can lift by four pounds represents a substantial increase of strength in their eyes.

[xo-karate]

Gymnasts have to worry about things like square-cube law and the like, and so reducing their total mass even at the cost of total strength is a valid goal in and of itself for them. They do a lot of bodyweight exercise where losing eight pounds of weight but simultaneously lowering the amount of weight they can lift by four pounds represents a substantial increase of strength in their eyes.

Wouldn't this be the same in weight classes in combat sports?

[bushido_man96]

Personally, I used to do only "functional movement" strength training and bodyweight exercises. I did get stronger than I was, of course, but I have gotten stronger still since adding barbell training (based on StrongLifts 5x5, actually), and I haven't gotten any slower. Now I do a combination of the two, and it seems to be working quite well for me. There might be a point where you get too bulky to move quickly, regardless of whether that bulk is muscle or fat, but I don't think I have the body type to pack on that much muscle and as long as I train to promote fast-twitch muscle fiber development, I should maintain/improve my speed, regardless. I've seen plenty of very muscular people who are very fast, so it can certainly be done.

Yes, most people can gain a lot of muscle with a negligible effect on speed. Eventually, if your shoulders get to big your arms lose range of motion. If your upper legs get too muscular your kicks lose height. If your biceps and triceps get too large, your punches will slow down.

Is there proof to these claims? You lose range of motion by not stretching. Guys with big, strong legs can still kick high; Van Damme comes to mind. Wesley Snipes and Michael Jai White are big guys, too, but they kick well. I'm sure there are many more I am missing, but you can see big guys compete in the old K-1s, and they had some big, strong legs, too. Still kick high and kick well.

I assume that you are referring to me saying "there might be a point where you get too bulky to move quickly"? If so, I can tell you that I don't have proof, which is why I said "might"--I have known a couple people who bulked up and got slower, but that's all. Just an anecdotal observation and musing on my part . I definitely agree that being muscular doesn't make you slow, I was merely thinking out loud that there may be a point of diminishing returns.

Sorry about the misconception here, Wastelander. My comments were mainly directed towards GreatestDisciple's comments.

[bushido_man96]

Gymnasts have to worry about things like square-cube law and the like, and so reducing their total mass even at the cost of total strength is a valid goal in and of itself for them. They do a lot of bodyweight exercise where losing eight pounds of weight but simultaneously lowering the amount of weight they can lift by four pounds represents a substantial increase of strength in their eyes.

Wouldn't this be the same in weight classes in combat sports?

When you put on bulk, you put on bulk, it doesn't matter how. If you have big arms because you do the ring event a lot, then how is that different than the guy who has big arms because he does a lot of triceps dips and barbell curls?

Also, everyone has a "genetic potential," and there are articles out there that can relate it better than I can. The point is, you can't too much beyond that unless you add in some kind of performance enhancers. There is also, sans performance enhancers, a point at which it becomes difficult to add more weight to a one-rep max. Professional lifters have a very stringent workout protocol, and whereas a novice lifter may add 100 lbs to their squat max in a year, a guy who dead lifts 1000 lbs will work for a whole year to add between 2.5 to 5 lbs to that effort. Maybe they'll add 10 to it over the course of a year. So at that point, they are getting ever closer to that genetic potential. These little guys that do gymnastics are probably close to their genetic potential, as well, in regards to the bodyweight exercises they do.

My point is, the bulk little gymnastics athletes put on isn't any different than getting stronger and bulking up by lifting weights for power. Nor those who only do bodyweight exercises over bench presses or power cleans. And just because a power lift is doing a heavy lift slowly, doesn't mean they are slow. Lifters do a lift as fast as they can. 135 lbs goes up a lot faster than 400 lbs. Obviously, heavier weight will be harder to move, so it takes longer. But it isn't necessarily slow, and it isn't encouraging or teaching the body to be slow.

Hope all that helps.

[Evil Dave]

I thing you are mixing up body building with bulking up, they seem like the same goal, but are not. In body building you are trying to build the biggest and most symmetrical body you can ~ through training, diet, pills, needles, etc. If they tried to introduce body building today as a sport nobody would allow/insure it because of the nasty effects on the body. Bulking up is also the new term for 'toneing up'. Here you are putting on weight and muscle mass, but instead of through a specific body building program you do it through your sport and supporting/functional exercises.

I have a similar discussion with a number of women {sorry ladies} about this very topic in my line of work {Personal Trainer, Lifting Coach}.

[The Greatest Disciple]

I thing you are mixing up body building with bulking up, they seem like the same goal, but are not. In body building you are trying to build the biggest and most symmetrical body you can ~ through training, diet, pills, needles, etc. If they tried to introduce body building today as a sport nobody would allow/insure it because of the nasty effects on the body. Bulking up is also the new term for 'toneing up'. Here you are putting on weight and muscle mass, but instead of through a specific body building program you do it through your sport and supporting/functional exercises.

I have a similar discussion with a number of women {sorry ladies} about this very topic in my line of work {Personal Trainer, Lifting Coach}.

This is a fantastic point.

To everyone else: I have a couple of examples. My deltoids got too large at one point, and my grappling capabilities dipped fairly dramatically. I had the same problem with my calves and standing with feet together for kata and bowing. I changed it up a little and was able to keep all my strength and have much more speed and flexibility.

[JusticeZero]

Wouldn't this be the same in weight classes in combat sports?

Only if there were no weight classes - the 135 pound guy has to grapple with the 285 pound guy in this hypothetical MMA match. Obviously this is going to select out the smallest guys, and the big-ish guys are going to focus on getting huge so they can compete with the super-heavyweights.

Well, in gymnastics, smaller is better. So they work toward a compromise of good strength with less body weight. As a result, you don't see any huge muscular gymnasts.