I seem to have an unusual position on what kind of trunk exercises are appropriate for combat sports. Most trunk exercises I see done are bodyweight and done with a large numbers of repetitions or simply isometric holds. While this is as good a way as any to do conditioning, I don't see it as benefiting the needs of a fighter very much.
In striking and weapon arts the primary ways in which the trunk muscles are going to be used can be divided into offensive and defensive. On the defense I might pull my head backwards quickly, arching my back as I do, so that I can dodge a strike; or duck to the side turning my torso and basically doing an oblique crunch while standing. On the attack my trunk is used to transmit force from my legs and hips to my upper body to make for more powerful hits.
Each of these applications have several important characteristics in common. The movement is sudden: it does not build gradually, it must be made in an instant; the movement is fast; and the movement is high intensity: that is rapid acceleration (and then deceleration).
To this end our trunk exercises should be geared towards producing sudden, fast, high intensity movements. We don't do that with exercises that are way out on the endurance end of intensity. Nor do we do it with isometric exercises.
I suggest four categories of trunk exercises for the fighter.
Conventional Strength Training - Exercises like weighted crunches, obliques, side bends and hyperextensions. The important part is to use enough weight that you can do only 8-12 reps max. Higher intensity i.e. 6RM or less, is not recommended for small muscles like those of the trunk nor for single joint exercises, which these effectively are. Lower intensity builds more strength than endurance and for our purposes we need strength.
For someone who is brand new, isometric exercises, like planks and bridges, can be a reasonable starting point, but only until a 30 sec. hold is possible. Then you need to move up to dynamic exercises. And if necessary start doing crunches and the like with no weight, but only until you can do more than 12, then you need to add weight.
I actually see machines as a perfectly good way to do these exercises. Things like an ab crunch machine, back extension machine or torso rotation machine. But I say that in the context of a person doing a program that includes four different kinds of torso training as well as their technical training. The advantage of a machine in this context is that it allows for higher weights, which builds more strength and power. And I wouldn't do machines all the time, I'd do them in the run up to a competition when I'm looking for max strength and power in my entire program.
Structural Loading - Structural loading is the demand on your torso muscles from lifting and carrying heavy weights. While doing exercises like squats, deadlifts, lunges and step-ups* you have to stabilize your torso against the weight. The higher up the weight is held the greater the demand on trunk muscles, so racking weights at shoulder level in the clean position is more challenging than having dumbbells hanging down by your side.
For single leg exercises it's beneficial to hold the weight on the opposite side, such as doing right leg step-ups with a dumbbell in the left hand and vice-versa.
A variety of different exercises will provide a variety of different challenges to your trunk muscles allowing for some fairly complete training of the torso.
* This list isn't exclusive, these are categories of exercises with lot's of potential for variation. Additionally, a wide variety of non-conventional weightlifting options exist which will fulfill this objective. Examples include: sled drag/push, tire flipping, side presses and lots of other options.
Plyometrics - As the needs of our torso muscles are primarily these are important exercises for the program. The neurologic component of any plyometric exercise is driven by the reflex traveling from the muscle to the spine and back. For trunk muscles this is necessarily shorter than any other joint. As such it is most important with trunk plyometrics to minimize the contact time.
Suggested Exercises: Floor slams, Back throws, side throws, reverse/back side throws. As well as chest pass/bounce with a hip pivot.
High-Intensity Trunk Conditioning - There are several options for High-Intensity Interval Training that will also provide a valuable training load on the trunk muscles that stabilize your torso. Battle ropes, clubbells, sledgehammer and similar exercises.
My preference is for heavy bar cutting patterns. Taking a 9+ lb. exercise bar doing cutting patterns is a good high intensity exercises for intervals. Plus throwing around that weight at the end will challenge all of your balance muscles from the ankles to your upper back. This can be put together by buying a 4 foot iron pipe at a home improvement store, and then filling it with sand. The result is cheaper than a sledge hammer (or clubbell) but with similar characteristics.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Event Foods
What to eat during a long event recently came up here, on Armour Archive.
Having just finished a semester of nutrition for performance, here's what I replied:
While fighting the primary thing your body is losing is water and electrolytes.
Think about the time you spend on the field. In your armour you're pretty much always sweating (heck I sweat through my gambeson at a frostbite tourney). But most of the time is spent standing around or maybe walking. Interspersed are brief bits of max intensity action. While those are physically demanding, they don't actually burn that many calories. And your muscles also highly active, but you shouldn't be sore like you are after a session of strength training.
The needs are to replace electrolytes and water. You don't actually have a high need for either carbs or protein at this time.
There are plenty of ways to replenish electrolytes: gatorade, jerky, pickles etc. So you need to find what appeals to you and what has worked in the past.
You need to eat enough that you don't feel hungry or tired. Obviously those will impede performance and these will vary from person to person and how that day is going (or how last night went). And to meet this need you should eat whatever you like to eat and has worked for you in the past. Eating lean meats is going to be preferable to fatty meats, for most people, because the fattier meals tend to be harder on the digestion.
The question asked was about event foods. And not recovery from training. Training should be much more demanding than fighting and so the needs are different and increased.
Of course, the topic of protein came up in the discussion:
You don't burn protein for energy under normal circumstance. Protein metabolism has noxious by-products (due to the nitrogen), so the body always keeps it to a minimum. Except in starvation. Using your muscles a bunch doesn't lead to protein metabolism.
If your muscles are sore, and in need of repair, then protein is needed. But the repair process takes time. If you're sore on Saturday then the repair process won't be complete until Monday or Tuesday. Protein consumption does not meaningfully affect this process. Protein consumption simply isn't gonna make a difference for Sunday.
Of course, that's no reason not to eat food you enjoy! One of the things I liked about my nutrition class was the repeated emphasis on Enjoying Food.
And the only thing that doesn't recover in a day or less is muscle soreness of the kind that would be fixed by protein consumption. There are different ways for a muscle to be sore (including Delayed Onset, where I don't hurt until after I get home from the event
).
Some of those other kinds of sore can be fixed faster. For instance cramps may be fixed by stretching, massage and/or electrolytes depending on cause.
Having just finished a semester of nutrition for performance, here's what I replied:
While fighting the primary thing your body is losing is water and electrolytes.
Think about the time you spend on the field. In your armour you're pretty much always sweating (heck I sweat through my gambeson at a frostbite tourney). But most of the time is spent standing around or maybe walking. Interspersed are brief bits of max intensity action. While those are physically demanding, they don't actually burn that many calories. And your muscles also highly active, but you shouldn't be sore like you are after a session of strength training.
The needs are to replace electrolytes and water. You don't actually have a high need for either carbs or protein at this time.
There are plenty of ways to replenish electrolytes: gatorade, jerky, pickles etc. So you need to find what appeals to you and what has worked in the past.
You need to eat enough that you don't feel hungry or tired. Obviously those will impede performance and these will vary from person to person and how that day is going (or how last night went). And to meet this need you should eat whatever you like to eat and has worked for you in the past. Eating lean meats is going to be preferable to fatty meats, for most people, because the fattier meals tend to be harder on the digestion.
The question asked was about event foods. And not recovery from training. Training should be much more demanding than fighting and so the needs are different and increased.
Of course, the topic of protein came up in the discussion:
You don't burn protein for energy under normal circumstance. Protein metabolism has noxious by-products (due to the nitrogen), so the body always keeps it to a minimum. Except in starvation. Using your muscles a bunch doesn't lead to protein metabolism.
If your muscles are sore, and in need of repair, then protein is needed. But the repair process takes time. If you're sore on Saturday then the repair process won't be complete until Monday or Tuesday. Protein consumption does not meaningfully affect this process. Protein consumption simply isn't gonna make a difference for Sunday.
Of course, that's no reason not to eat food you enjoy! One of the things I liked about my nutrition class was the repeated emphasis on Enjoying Food.
And the only thing that doesn't recover in a day or less is muscle soreness of the kind that would be fixed by protein consumption. There are different ways for a muscle to be sore (including Delayed Onset, where I don't hurt until after I get home from the event
).Some of those other kinds of sore can be fixed faster. For instance cramps may be fixed by stretching, massage and/or electrolytes depending on cause.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Olympic Lifts v. Kettlebells
A recent journal article(1) on kettlebells initiated another round of discussion on the merits and/or advantages of the kettlebell. I want to talk about that, and I will in a moment, but just to be clear: I have nothing against kettlebells. My objection is when folks think they are better than another tool at everything, as opposed to using them for what they do well and using the correct tool for other objectives.
First, the results of the study: conventional weightlifting was superior to the kettlebell training.
Now, listen to how the results are described by the authors,
In all three tests (power clean and back squat 1RM and vertical jump) the conventional training produced larger gains. In the vertical jump and power clean the gains were close enough to each other that the differences were not statistically significant.
Which brings me to the next point: significance. The fact that the test for statistical significance was "passed" does not mean the results are significant in any other way. The increase in jump height for the KB group was less than 2mm. This is not telling, not meaningful, not important, not momentous, not compelling, or frankly even suggestive (yup, I used a thesaurus).
True, the conventional protocol produced jump height gains of just under a centimeter, so it wasn't any of those synonyms either.
On to the conversation! There have been numerous blog posts about this already. And there are two criticisms of the study that I've seen multiple times, so I'd like to address them.
A. The test procedures. Others have criticized the selection of tests on the grounds that they don't test what the kettlebell training trains or the tests are more similar to the weightlifting exercises so of course that group got better.
The tests selected for this study are standard tests. This has two advantages. First the results of this test can be compared to other studies that used the same test. Second, there is already a body of literature demonstrating that these tests correlate to actual measures of athletic performance. Both of these point are important for useful science.
If the conventional weightlifting exercises and tests are more similar, doesn't that tell us that the specificity of those exercises is higher? Remember, correlation between those test and athletic performance have already been demonstrated.
And while kettlebell exercises can be useful, one characteristic they don't possess is a high degree of movement specificity to many sport actions. (They are instead good for metabolic specificity etc.)
B. Another criticism was that the weights used for the KB protocol were too light. For the KB protocol everyone used a 16kg bell. For the conventional training 80% of 1RM was used, which was substantially higher. Some argued that the KB group should have used the same weight as the conventional group.
There are two problems with this criticism. The typical KB program uses the same weight or a narrow range and the objective is to increase reps not weight. The KB protocol used in this study looks like others I've seen suggested for kettlebell training.
But the sillier part is that the researchers couldn't have used kettlebells heavy enough for 80% of 1RM. They would have needed a set of KB's that went from around 60kg to 150kg. The largest I could find online was 48kg. And a blog post that a manufacture was planning to go up to 100 kg. So weights that size would've been impossible to get.
And why? Because KB training isn't done that way. The researchers compared a typical KB approach to a typical Olympic lifting approach. That's reasonable.
Lastly, a pet peeve of mind when it comes to discussing kettlebells. There were no kettlebell exercises done as part of this study. There were exercises done with kettlebells. All of the KB protocol could have been done with dumbbells. And for cheaper
1. Otto WH 3rd, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Spiering BA (2012). Effects of weightlifting vs. kettlebell training on vertical jump, strength, and body composition. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, volume 26(5),1199-202
First, the results of the study: conventional weightlifting was superior to the kettlebell training.
Now, listen to how the results are described by the authors,
The principle finding of the present study was that short-term kettlebell training significantly increased vertical jump, and that the gain in vertical jump performance was equivalent to that achieved with a combination of [Olympic] weightlifting and traditional heavy resistance training exercises.
Both kettlebell and training and weightlifting increased back squat 1RM.
The results of the present study indicated that both weightlifting and kettlebell movements are effective in improving back squat and power clean 1RM as well as vertical jump ability; however, weightlifting exercises are more effective for strength development.Does this sound like the weightlifting was superior?
In all three tests (power clean and back squat 1RM and vertical jump) the conventional training produced larger gains. In the vertical jump and power clean the gains were close enough to each other that the differences were not statistically significant.
Which brings me to the next point: significance. The fact that the test for statistical significance was "passed" does not mean the results are significant in any other way. The increase in jump height for the KB group was less than 2mm. This is not telling, not meaningful, not important, not momentous, not compelling, or frankly even suggestive (yup, I used a thesaurus).
True, the conventional protocol produced jump height gains of just under a centimeter, so it wasn't any of those synonyms either.
On to the conversation! There have been numerous blog posts about this already. And there are two criticisms of the study that I've seen multiple times, so I'd like to address them.
A. The test procedures. Others have criticized the selection of tests on the grounds that they don't test what the kettlebell training trains or the tests are more similar to the weightlifting exercises so of course that group got better.
The tests selected for this study are standard tests. This has two advantages. First the results of this test can be compared to other studies that used the same test. Second, there is already a body of literature demonstrating that these tests correlate to actual measures of athletic performance. Both of these point are important for useful science.
If the conventional weightlifting exercises and tests are more similar, doesn't that tell us that the specificity of those exercises is higher? Remember, correlation between those test and athletic performance have already been demonstrated.
And while kettlebell exercises can be useful, one characteristic they don't possess is a high degree of movement specificity to many sport actions. (They are instead good for metabolic specificity etc.)
B. Another criticism was that the weights used for the KB protocol were too light. For the KB protocol everyone used a 16kg bell. For the conventional training 80% of 1RM was used, which was substantially higher. Some argued that the KB group should have used the same weight as the conventional group.
There are two problems with this criticism. The typical KB program uses the same weight or a narrow range and the objective is to increase reps not weight. The KB protocol used in this study looks like others I've seen suggested for kettlebell training.
But the sillier part is that the researchers couldn't have used kettlebells heavy enough for 80% of 1RM. They would have needed a set of KB's that went from around 60kg to 150kg. The largest I could find online was 48kg. And a blog post that a manufacture was planning to go up to 100 kg. So weights that size would've been impossible to get.
And why? Because KB training isn't done that way. The researchers compared a typical KB approach to a typical Olympic lifting approach. That's reasonable.
Lastly, a pet peeve of mind when it comes to discussing kettlebells. There were no kettlebell exercises done as part of this study. There were exercises done with kettlebells. All of the KB protocol could have been done with dumbbells. And for cheaper
1. Otto WH 3rd, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Spiering BA (2012). Effects of weightlifting vs. kettlebell training on vertical jump, strength, and body composition. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, volume 26(5),1199-202
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Interesting Links
A couple of other blog posts I've liked:
On CrossFit and General v. Specific training http://maxwellsc.com/blog.cfm?blogID=90
On Kettlebells http://skinnybulkup.com/kettlebells-are-inferior-to-dumbbells/
In both cases there are little things I disagree with, but overall they are worth reading.
On CrossFit and General v. Specific training http://maxwellsc.com/blog.cfm?blogID=90
On Kettlebells http://skinnybulkup.com/kettlebells-are-inferior-to-dumbbells/
In both cases there are little things I disagree with, but overall they are worth reading.
Friday, April 13, 2012
More Interval Training
This came up again on the HEMA Alliance forum, someone asked about the training that Mike Edelson was doing (which I talked about before).
Tabata's are a specific protocol of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT). As Mike acknowledges, he is not using the term correctly. Tabata protocol is 20 seconds of high intensity and 10 seconds of medium intensity (i.e. active rest). The periods are alternated 8 times for 4 minutes. Work:rest ratio is 2:1. High intensity was defined using a cycle ergometer originally, but you can think of it as an intensity you can only maintain for around 20 seconds. This should be well above your anaerobic threshold i.e. you should be breathless at the end of each . As you improve over the weeks you can progress by increasing duration or intensity.
Mike is doing more conventional interval training. This is done with longer work periods of 30 s. to 2 minutes. And easier work to rest ratios of 1:2 to 3:2. Also the intensity is lower, around your anaerobic threshold. So a run but not a sprint.
Both do a good job of increasing conditioning, especially for anaerobic activities like fighting. But the HIIT is gonna be better for that purpose. For increasing the intensity of his stations to high-intensity you could use a sledge hammer in place of the axe (or an exercise bar) and replace the speed rope with some plyos like box jumps or med ball slams.
What Mike is doing is a lot like circuit training. The primary difference being that he has several different training stations while interval training typically refers to all the same exercise. Perhaps we should develop the "HEMAA Protocol", a high-intensity sword specific circuit.
Tabata's are a specific protocol of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT). As Mike acknowledges, he is not using the term correctly. Tabata protocol is 20 seconds of high intensity and 10 seconds of medium intensity (i.e. active rest). The periods are alternated 8 times for 4 minutes. Work:rest ratio is 2:1. High intensity was defined using a cycle ergometer originally, but you can think of it as an intensity you can only maintain for around 20 seconds. This should be well above your anaerobic threshold i.e. you should be breathless at the end of each . As you improve over the weeks you can progress by increasing duration or intensity.
Mike is doing more conventional interval training. This is done with longer work periods of 30 s. to 2 minutes. And easier work to rest ratios of 1:2 to 3:2. Also the intensity is lower, around your anaerobic threshold. So a run but not a sprint.
Both do a good job of increasing conditioning, especially for anaerobic activities like fighting. But the HIIT is gonna be better for that purpose. For increasing the intensity of his stations to high-intensity you could use a sledge hammer in place of the axe (or an exercise bar) and replace the speed rope with some plyos like box jumps or med ball slams.
What Mike is doing is a lot like circuit training. The primary difference being that he has several different training stations while interval training typically refers to all the same exercise. Perhaps we should develop the "HEMAA Protocol", a high-intensity sword specific circuit.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Overhead lifts
"Another common mistake is lifting weights higher than shoulder level or bringing weights behind the the plane of the body." P. 188 Complete Conditioning for Tennis, E. Paul Roetert & Todd S. Ellenbecker.
This is a quote from a book on tennis. But the similarity in movements between tennis and longsword are relevant . This is also common advice for baseball pitchers.So, for longsword guys the overhead lifts are a potential problem. Due to the high stress on the shoulder from doing overhead sport actions the overhead lifts should be avoided. This is also common advice for baseball pitchers.
So do an incline press instead of the shoulder press (and do a vertical pull exercise as well e.g. lat pulldown, pull-ups, dips etc.). And only do cleans for Olympic lifts, not the snatch or jerk.
To explain, a little anatomy first: the head of the humerus rests in a socket, the glenoid cavity. Above the socket is the acromion, a projection off the scapula. In between these two is the subacromial space, which has to fit tendons, muscle and bursa.
Lifting the humerus above about 90* tends to compress the subacromial space. This can be lessened by strengthening the rotator cuff muscles. Healthy, strong rotator cuff muscles will help the head of the humerus move correctly, so that it doesn't impinge.
However, strengthening the muscles that pull the humerus upward will not reduce the upward compression of the humerus against the arcomion.
Overhead work, like house painting, and overhead sports, like pitchers and tennis, involve much more upward movement of the humerus. Most people bodies can't tolerate a large amount of overhead movement of the arm. There is variation in this characteristic; differences in acromion shape, glenoid cavity health, rotator cuff health and strength, and history of injury will all effect the likelihood of developing impingement.
Motion at the edge of a range of motion increases the likelihood of chronic injury. So overhead athletes have a much higher likelihood of impingement. Even with correct form for pitching or serves in tennis, the stress is still high. Professional athletes frequently subject themselves to predictable injury because of their drive to compete.
This blog post also does a reasonable job of discussing it.
To produce the same strengthening of as an overhead press you can do an upright row and a shoulder shrug. Same muscles, used the same way, but each avoids excess abduction of the humerus.
This is a quote from a book on tennis. But the similarity in movements between tennis and longsword are relevant . This is also common advice for baseball pitchers.So, for longsword guys the overhead lifts are a potential problem. Due to the high stress on the shoulder from doing overhead sport actions the overhead lifts should be avoided. This is also common advice for baseball pitchers.
So do an incline press instead of the shoulder press (and do a vertical pull exercise as well e.g. lat pulldown, pull-ups, dips etc.). And only do cleans for Olympic lifts, not the snatch or jerk.
To explain, a little anatomy first: the head of the humerus rests in a socket, the glenoid cavity. Above the socket is the acromion, a projection off the scapula. In between these two is the subacromial space, which has to fit tendons, muscle and bursa.
Lifting the humerus above about 90* tends to compress the subacromial space. This can be lessened by strengthening the rotator cuff muscles. Healthy, strong rotator cuff muscles will help the head of the humerus move correctly, so that it doesn't impinge.
However, strengthening the muscles that pull the humerus upward will not reduce the upward compression of the humerus against the arcomion.
Overhead work, like house painting, and overhead sports, like pitchers and tennis, involve much more upward movement of the humerus. Most people bodies can't tolerate a large amount of overhead movement of the arm. There is variation in this characteristic; differences in acromion shape, glenoid cavity health, rotator cuff health and strength, and history of injury will all effect the likelihood of developing impingement.
Motion at the edge of a range of motion increases the likelihood of chronic injury. So overhead athletes have a much higher likelihood of impingement. Even with correct form for pitching or serves in tennis, the stress is still high. Professional athletes frequently subject themselves to predictable injury because of their drive to compete.
This blog post also does a reasonable job of discussing it.
To produce the same strengthening of as an overhead press you can do an upright row and a shoulder shrug. Same muscles, used the same way, but each avoids excess abduction of the humerus.
Complex training
Recently I was asked my thoughts on Complex training, in this thread.
Complex training involves mixing another training mode in with weight training. This is done during the rest periods between sets of lifts. The most common form uses plyometrics that are biomechanically related. Such as doing squats and box jumps. There is a good summary here. Other forms exist as well.
I'm aware of only a small body of research on complex training. What I've seen is that the benefits are small. That means that the advantages are most useful to people already at the top of their game. If you're coming in second in races then complexes may push you to first. If you're coming in tenth, you have fundamentals to work on more importantly.
The other reason that they are most appropriate for high-end athletes is that they significantly increase the stress on the body. The total volume of work done in a workout roughly doubles. For someone whose already developed a tolerance for lot's of exercise it's fine. For an amateur athlete it's probably too much and increases the risk of overtraining or even injury.
Complex training involves mixing another training mode in with weight training. This is done during the rest periods between sets of lifts. The most common form uses plyometrics that are biomechanically related. Such as doing squats and box jumps. There is a good summary here. Other forms exist as well.
I'm aware of only a small body of research on complex training. What I've seen is that the benefits are small. That means that the advantages are most useful to people already at the top of their game. If you're coming in second in races then complexes may push you to first. If you're coming in tenth, you have fundamentals to work on more importantly.
The other reason that they are most appropriate for high-end athletes is that they significantly increase the stress on the body. The total volume of work done in a workout roughly doubles. For someone whose already developed a tolerance for lot's of exercise it's fine. For an amateur athlete it's probably too much and increases the risk of overtraining or even injury.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)