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.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
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.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Bodyweight = Natural?
So, reading a book on fighting technique over the weekend, the book had a section on physical training. In there Mondschein states, ". . . in general, body-weight exercises have several advantages over weight training: . . . they develop the body in a more natural way, [and] teach us to use ourselves more efficiently."(p. 87) The listed exercises include:
And my question is, "What's natural about these?" In my regular life, the only time I ever end up in a plank, side plank, downward dog etc. position is while working out. And I certainly don't end up in those positions in a fight. Since these positions are not in fact natural, and are non-specific to fighting we should not value them above other exercises. They can still be useful, but they can't be the only exercises we do.
As to the assertion that they teach us to use our bodies more efficiently, I find myself confused by Ken's words. Training adaptations are specific, so my plank will become more efficient, but what else will? And my squats may gain some strength at first, but I'm not going to gain power with just body-weight squats. As such when I need power from my quads I will not have improved the efficiency of that action.
I'm not picking on Ken. He's a friend and can bench more than me. And I've seen this kind of thing from lot's of sources and people. His book just reminded me.
Many traditional martial arts have a bias towards body-weight or minimal equipment physical training. Over the years folks become convinced that this was because of it's superiority. Modern sports science has demonstrated this to be false. And so we need to move on in our martial arts training.
Mondschein, K. (2012). The Art of the Two-Handed Sword. Staten Island, NY: Swordplay Books
- Planks
- Side Planks
- Bridges
- A yoga Sun Salutation
- Leg Push-down
- Back-to-Back Squats
And my question is, "What's natural about these?" In my regular life, the only time I ever end up in a plank, side plank, downward dog etc. position is while working out. And I certainly don't end up in those positions in a fight. Since these positions are not in fact natural, and are non-specific to fighting we should not value them above other exercises. They can still be useful, but they can't be the only exercises we do.
As to the assertion that they teach us to use our bodies more efficiently, I find myself confused by Ken's words. Training adaptations are specific, so my plank will become more efficient, but what else will? And my squats may gain some strength at first, but I'm not going to gain power with just body-weight squats. As such when I need power from my quads I will not have improved the efficiency of that action.
I'm not picking on Ken. He's a friend and can bench more than me. And I've seen this kind of thing from lot's of sources and people. His book just reminded me.
Many traditional martial arts have a bias towards body-weight or minimal equipment physical training. Over the years folks become convinced that this was because of it's superiority. Modern sports science has demonstrated this to be false. And so we need to move on in our martial arts training.
Mondschein, K. (2012). The Art of the Two-Handed Sword. Staten Island, NY: Swordplay Books
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Sport Specific vs. General Fitness
One of the basic points of this blog is to describe a sport specific program for strength training for combat sports and martial arts. This is distinct from general fitness objectives, but not in a qualitative way. General fitness is a wonderful thing and anyone who does exercise to have good general fitness is doing a good thing.
But this blog isn't about general fitness, it's about performance in a specific endeavor. And a specific training program will produce better results than a general one in that endeavor.
This is why recommendations for non-specific exercises bug me. I see them plenty on people's descriptions of the exercise they do for their fighting. And it's not that they aren't getting fit. It's not they aren't strong. It's that the ability to hold a one-arm plank for 2 minutes has nothing to do with a sword fight. That's not disrespect for the ability to do that. I just object when they think that such does help with the fighting.
Non-specific training will carryover to fighting, but not as efficiently as specific training. Doing non-specific training and then winning a match doesn't prove it was the best route. Maybe you could do even better with a more specific program. Or maybe you don't care and you like the fitness you have - that's also wonderful.
Enjoy your exercise and enjoy your results, but please understand the difference between general fitness and sport specific fitness.
Cheers.
But this blog isn't about general fitness, it's about performance in a specific endeavor. And a specific training program will produce better results than a general one in that endeavor.
This is why recommendations for non-specific exercises bug me. I see them plenty on people's descriptions of the exercise they do for their fighting. And it's not that they aren't getting fit. It's not they aren't strong. It's that the ability to hold a one-arm plank for 2 minutes has nothing to do with a sword fight. That's not disrespect for the ability to do that. I just object when they think that such does help with the fighting.
Non-specific training will carryover to fighting, but not as efficiently as specific training. Doing non-specific training and then winning a match doesn't prove it was the best route. Maybe you could do even better with a more specific program. Or maybe you don't care and you like the fitness you have - that's also wonderful.
Enjoy your exercise and enjoy your results, but please understand the difference between general fitness and sport specific fitness.
Cheers.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Plyometric Intensity
Ebben, W.P., Fauth, M.L., Garceau, R.L., & Petusher, E.J.(2011). Kinetic Quantification of Plyometric Exercise Intensity. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, Volume 25 (number 12) 3288-3298.
Another article from a recent NSCA journal. This one is a study analyzing the intensity of plyometric exercises. The introduction describes how a wide variety of ideas of intensity are used to assess plyometric exercises and that a standard does not exist. I admit that my main textbook, Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning, is vague on the topic and it's own assignments of intensity don't always make sense to me.
The importance of determining intensity is that is allows a sensible progression of exercise. For weight lifting it's easy. Intensity = weight, simple as that. For typical aerobic/anaerobic conditioning it's nearly as simple. Increases in time, speed or incline equal higher intensity. Comparisons between time, speed and incline are not well defined but frequently application or objective can be used for guidance. No similar metric exists for plyometric exercise.
Previous studies have focused on muscle activation or joint stresses for assessing the intensity of the exercise. These studies are useful but do not provide a complete picture, as they do not take into account the neural training. The neural training aspect of plyometrics should show a strong carryover to performance. Assessments of muscle activity and joint stress can be used to guide the number of repetitions per set, number of sets and total foot contacts per session when designing a program, as described here.
The present study analyzed the ground reaction force (GRF) and several other variables from a variety of different common plyometric exercises. GRF for take-off and landing are calculated separately and the authors conclude that these can form the guiding components. The other variables were well correlated to to these two or were obvious from the exercise. That is RFD, GRF and power will always be related. And a countermovement jump will normally have a longer flight time than a hop.
If the exercises are ordered from lowest to highest GRF then two separate lists are needed for take-off versus landing. However, I do not see how the landing plyos relate well to combat sports. If I'm hitting the ground at speed it's due to being thrown, not jumps and the like. Even the most energetic footwork appears to be quite modest compared to a drop jump.
Intensity of Takeoff from lowest to highest:
These two links: Brian Mac and Sport Fitness Advisor, provide visuals to describe the various exercises.
Note this progression is not a chart of difficulty of the exercise in general. I find the single-leg jump to be harder than a countermovement jump, but the takeoff force needed is lower for the single-leg jump. The SLJ spreads the force out over more time, so that peak force is lower even though the amount of force produced by the single leg is greater than in a double leg jump.
Other measures of intensity include power, jump height and time to takeoff. Power and jump height are strongly correlated, except that using a dumbbells increases the power needs of the exercise. As power is important for combat sports jump height can be used to progress the intensity of exercise, with dumbbell jumps at the highest intensity.
Time to takeoff is another important measure for combat sports because of the need for rapid execution of strikes. The most powerful strike is useless if it's too slow to hit, so a somewhat lighter hit that is faster can be more useful (especially if it allows a set-up for a harder hit). Time to takeoff follows the opposite progression of jump height with low jumps having a shorter time to takeoff. The exception is overloaded jumps i.e. the single leg and dumbbell jumps which have a high time to takeoff despite the low jump height. Drop jumps also have a short time to takeoff due to the elastic nature of the exercise. This suggests that low jumps in rapid succession may be the best training stimulus for rapid actions like those found in fighting.
The above information can be used to design a program based on the needs of the particular athlete and the particular sport. If the coach concludes that the athlete needs to be faster than one program is indicated, but if the coach concludes that power needs to be worked then a different program is designed. Ultimately, a single best program will not be found, instead the program must be individualized to achieve the best results.
Another article from a recent NSCA journal. This one is a study analyzing the intensity of plyometric exercises. The introduction describes how a wide variety of ideas of intensity are used to assess plyometric exercises and that a standard does not exist. I admit that my main textbook, Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning, is vague on the topic and it's own assignments of intensity don't always make sense to me.
The importance of determining intensity is that is allows a sensible progression of exercise. For weight lifting it's easy. Intensity = weight, simple as that. For typical aerobic/anaerobic conditioning it's nearly as simple. Increases in time, speed or incline equal higher intensity. Comparisons between time, speed and incline are not well defined but frequently application or objective can be used for guidance. No similar metric exists for plyometric exercise.
Previous studies have focused on muscle activation or joint stresses for assessing the intensity of the exercise. These studies are useful but do not provide a complete picture, as they do not take into account the neural training. The neural training aspect of plyometrics should show a strong carryover to performance. Assessments of muscle activity and joint stress can be used to guide the number of repetitions per set, number of sets and total foot contacts per session when designing a program, as described here.
The present study analyzed the ground reaction force (GRF) and several other variables from a variety of different common plyometric exercises. GRF for take-off and landing are calculated separately and the authors conclude that these can form the guiding components. The other variables were well correlated to to these two or were obvious from the exercise. That is RFD, GRF and power will always be related. And a countermovement jump will normally have a longer flight time than a hop.
If the exercises are ordered from lowest to highest GRF then two separate lists are needed for take-off versus landing. However, I do not see how the landing plyos relate well to combat sports. If I'm hitting the ground at speed it's due to being thrown, not jumps and the like. Even the most energetic footwork appears to be quite modest compared to a drop jump.
Intensity of Takeoff from lowest to highest:
- Single Leg Jump
- Dumbbell Jump/Squat Jump*
- Countermovement Jump/Line Hop*
- Tuck Jump
- Cone Hop
These two links: Brian Mac and Sport Fitness Advisor, provide visuals to describe the various exercises.
Note this progression is not a chart of difficulty of the exercise in general. I find the single-leg jump to be harder than a countermovement jump, but the takeoff force needed is lower for the single-leg jump. The SLJ spreads the force out over more time, so that peak force is lower even though the amount of force produced by the single leg is greater than in a double leg jump.
Other measures of intensity include power, jump height and time to takeoff. Power and jump height are strongly correlated, except that using a dumbbells increases the power needs of the exercise. As power is important for combat sports jump height can be used to progress the intensity of exercise, with dumbbell jumps at the highest intensity.
Time to takeoff is another important measure for combat sports because of the need for rapid execution of strikes. The most powerful strike is useless if it's too slow to hit, so a somewhat lighter hit that is faster can be more useful (especially if it allows a set-up for a harder hit). Time to takeoff follows the opposite progression of jump height with low jumps having a shorter time to takeoff. The exception is overloaded jumps i.e. the single leg and dumbbell jumps which have a high time to takeoff despite the low jump height. Drop jumps also have a short time to takeoff due to the elastic nature of the exercise. This suggests that low jumps in rapid succession may be the best training stimulus for rapid actions like those found in fighting.
The above information can be used to design a program based on the needs of the particular athlete and the particular sport. If the coach concludes that the athlete needs to be faster than one program is indicated, but if the coach concludes that power needs to be worked then a different program is designed. Ultimately, a single best program will not be found, instead the program must be individualized to achieve the best results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)