hardest warmup excersise

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Peter Klein]

what is the hardest warmup excersise u guys do?

[PeterR]

Go no sen kuzushi

[happysod]

Putting the damn mats out - it's also our favorite "warm-down"

[Jason Tonks]

Push ups on the backs of the hands.

All the best

Jason T

[Daniel Mills]

Jogging.

;)

[Matt Gallagher]

The one I find hardest:-

Half sitting/half lying back with legs together stretched out, feet about 6 inches off the floor, hands together on stomach.

Lasts for about 2 mins but feels like forever!

I'm told there's a trick to this

Does anyone know it?

Sensei says "It's all in the mind" about a second before I drop to the floor panting

Happy Training

Matt

[mj]

The hardest warm up I ever did was none at all.

Nearly killed me.

[Joe Jutsu]

One of my favorites is the kokyu dosa set of exersices that really work out the abdominals. In the distant distant future if I were ever to run classes I would begin every class with these exercises.

:ki:

[Kevin Wilbanks]

Push ups on the backs of the hands.

All the best

Jason T
This is so bad for your wrists it makes me cringe just to think about it. If this was presented as a warm up in a class I was taking I would simply refuse or do pushups with a safe hand position. Doing them in this position does nothing but reduce the value of the pushup for the rest of the upper body by creating a weak link, and put an unneccessary, excessive strain on wrist ligaments. Good luck with being able to use your hands for tasks like eating or putting on your pants in older age if you keep doing this one.

[Kevin Wilbanks]

The one I find hardest:-

Half sitting/half lying back with legs together stretched out, feet about 6 inches off the floor, hands together on stomach.

Lasts for about 2 mins but feels like forever!

I'm told there's a trick to this

Does anyone know it?

Sensei says "It's all in the mind" about a second before I drop to the floor panting

Happy Training

Matt
The development of isometric strength-endurance in the abdominal and hip flexors is in your muscles, peripheral and central nervous systems as well as your mind. The trick is the same trick for developing any kind of fitness attribute: a consistent program of progressively increasing exercise. In this case, it would probably mean doing it for as long as you can with good form a few times every few days. Of course, to me the question is: why bother? What carryover to the dynamic variety of activities involved in Aikido can one expect from developing the ability to hold your body in a static v-shape for long periods of time? I would say almost none.

[Dave Miller]

This [push-ups on the backs of the hands] is so bad for your wrists it makes me cringe just to think about it. If this was presented as a warm up in a class I was taking I would simply refuse or do pushups with a safe hand position. Doing them in this position does nothing but reduce the value of the pushup for the rest of the upper body by creating a weak link, and put an unneccessary, excessive strain on wrist ligaments. Good luck with being able to use your hands for tasks like eating or putting on your pants in older age if you keep doing this one.I gotta agree with Kevin 100% on this one. You do those for very long and your wrists will get too weak to do much, not to mention the possibility of degenerative arthritis.

:freaky:

[Dave Miller]

What carryover to the dynamic variety of activities involved in Aikido can one expect from developing the ability to hold your body in a static v-shape for long periods of time? I would say almost none.Actually, any excercise that builds the abs is good for Aikido. If you want your body to move as one unit, the top and bottom must be strongly connected. That connection is the abdominal musculature.

The best ab excercises are ones that challenge not only the rectus abdominus (the "6-pack muscle) such as straight sit-ups and leg raises but also the obliques (the side abs). This would include sit-ups with a twist half-way up as well as side sit-ups and side crunches.

:)

[Kevin Wilbanks]

Side situps, side crunches, and twisting situps are all irrelevant to functional development of the obliques. Look at an anatomy diagram, and you will see that the obliques are strung up to twist the torso, not flex it side to side, which eliminates the first two off the bat.

More accurately in a functional context, the primary role of the obliques as well as all the midsection muscles is to RESIST twisting, flexing and extending of the torso, not create these motions - it's about stability, not mobility. Hence, the best basic exercise for the whole midsection is the barbell squat, followed by deadlift variations and standing overhead presses (those ab wheels aren't bad either, if you use them correctly).

Moreover, in any athletic context, the motions/resisted motions are likely to be very fast, and directional changes abrubt. So, for more specific preparation, you train em like you use em. This means dynamic, full-body movements which require this kind of response from the midsection - Olympic lifts, and quick medicine ball drills, especially those with tenkan-esque elements.

In my view, static ab exercises, and virtually all exercises designed to specifically work the abs and the obliques are mostly a waste of time for any purposes beyond minimal health maintenance. Thinking about the body in terms of isolation and bodyparts is the more general training error. The body is about coordinated movements, not pieces and parts. All functional movements require a very complex, dynamic interplay of at least dozens of muscles with fluid changes in the stability/mobility roles of those involved - trying to target a particular muscle group is so simplistic and reductive as to be almost useless.

[Dave Miller]

Side situps, side crunches, and twisting situps are all irrelevant to functional development of the obliques. Look at an anatomy diagram, and you will see that the obliques are strung up to twist the torso, not flex it side to side, which eliminates the first two off the bat.

More accurately in a functional context, the primary role of the obliques as well as all the midsection muscles is to RESIST twisting, flexing and extending of the torso, not create these motions - it's about stability, not mobility. Hence, the best basic exercise for the whole midsection is the barbell squat, followed by deadlift variations and standing overhead presses (those ab wheels aren't bad either, if you use them correctly).

Moreover, in any athletic context, the motions/resisted motions are likely to be very fast, and directional changes abrubt. So, for more specific preparation, you train em like you use em. This means dynamic, full-body movements which require this kind of response from the midsection - Olympic lifts, and quick medicine ball drills, especially those with tenkan-esque elements.

In my view, static ab exercises, and virtually all exercises designed to specifically work the abs and the obliques are mostly a waste of time for any purposes beyond minimal health maintenance. Thinking about the body in terms of isolation and bodyparts is the more general training error. The body is about coordinated movements, not pieces and parts. All functional movements require a very complex, dynamic interplay of at least dozens of muscles with fluid changes in the stability/mobility roles of those involved - trying to target a particular muscle group is so simplistic and reductive as to be almost useless.Actually, when you go beyond basic anatomy and move into kinesiology, you see that the obliques do indeed provide "side to side" motion as well as twisting motion. And they do indeed provide twisting motion as well as resisting twisting. In terms of kinesiology, these to actions are identical.

I agree that twisting excercises are indeed excellent for developing the obliques. However, since most of don't have a medicine ball at home, side crunches, twisting sit-ups and such must suffice.

Also, building strength in a muscle group is helpful regardless of how it is built. So called "static" excercises do indeed provide added support for "dynamic" activities as it is muscle strength that is built and that supports the skelatol frame. Afterall, Olympic sprinters and cyclists spend lots and lots of time in the weight room building up "static" strength which they use in the "dynamic" activity of running and cylcing. By isolating and working specific muscle groups individually (such as quads, hams, calves and glutes), it helps the whole system to function better. If you don't do this, then the same muscles will keep "taking up the slack" for the weaker ones that never get specifically worked.

:)

[Thor's Hammer]

There's one that stretches the quads where one leg bends and the other stays straight. Keeping yourself upright in this position is very very difficult on the hamstrings!

[Kevin Wilbanks]

Actually, when you go beyond basic anatomy and move into kinesiology, you see that the obliques do indeed provide "side to side" motion as well as twisting motion. And they do indeed provide twisting motion as well as resisting twisting. In terms of kinesiology, these to actions are identical..
You are speaking unclearly here. Although the obliques are capable of creating some lateral spinal flexion, it is clearly not their primary function, as their line of pull extends generally from the side/rear of the rib cage on one side to the opposite hip. This is skewed more than 45 degrees from the line of pull required for side flexion.

As far as 'providing motion' goes, you are not specifying a meaningful context. Sure, the obliques are capable of creating these movements, but the question is, do they or should they in any functional context? The answer is mostly no, especially in Aikido - strong resistance to twisting is the essence of powerful Tenkan. Kinesiologically, a quasi-static resistance to twisting is most definitely NOT the same moving through a range of motion, a static contraction is NOT the same as a moving one, and a fast movement is NOT the same as a slow one. Each movement and functional context is unique from the standpoint of neurological adaptation. According to the law of training specificity, the closer the training is to the goal activity, the more carryover.
I agree that twisting excercises are indeed excellent for developing the obliques. However, since most of don't have a medicine ball at home, side crunches, twisting sit-ups and such must suffice.
Medicine balls are relatively inexpensive, and many drills can be done with substitutes such as milk jugs or weight plates. As I have stated before, the three exercises you specify will not 'suffice' for much, except burning calories and developing a minimal level of muscle endurance in functionally irrelevant movement patterns.
Also, building strength in a muscle group is helpful regardless of how it is built. So called "static" excercises do indeed provide added support for "dynamic" activities as it is muscle strength that is built and that supports the skelatol frame.
"Strength" is not necessarily useful regardless of how it is built. One must differentiate between different types of strength and different physiological components of strength to make that assessment. The only component of strength which is not specific to movement patterns is the ability of a muscle to produce force in proportion to its cross-sectional area. All other aspects of strength are governed by neurological adaptations which are varyingly specific to movement patttern, movement speed, and movement type. In advanced periodized programs, there can be a limited role for exercises with movement patterns that are very dissimilar to functional movements, when employed solely to increase muscle size, but this doesn't seem to be what you are describing. For most people this kind of exercise is a waste of effort.

There is nothing so-called about static exercise. I am using it to describe an exercise in which muscles contract but the involved joints do not move. This kind of exercise has limited application to moving activities.
Afterall, Olympic sprinters and cyclists spend lots and lots of time in the weight room building up "static" strength which they use in the "dynamic" activity of running and cylcing. By isolating and working specific muscle groups individually (such as quads, hams, calves and glutes), it helps the whole system to function better. If you don't do this, then the same muscles will keep "taking up the slack" for the weaker ones that never get specifically worked.
Actually, you will find very few athletes of any type doing static contraction/isometric exercises in weight rooms. Exactly which athletes and coaches are we talking about here? Since you have demonstrated a lack of familiarity with many of the concepts and terminology used in basic exercise science, I find it hard to see how you can purport to know so much about the theory and practice of training the world's greatest athletes.

Can you name one Olympic coach or athlete that subscribes to the simplistic training theory you have described? It will be difficult, because for starters, it is actually physiologically impossible to isolate and work any specific muscle group under non-trivial loads - other muscle groups automatically become involved as stabilizers and synergists in any joint movement against significant resistance. The only reason one would end up with weak muscle groups from performing basic compound movements such as squats, pulls and presses - which actually form the core of virtually every athletes resistance program - would be from habitually performing them improperly or using improper training loads.

Even in the hypothetical case where a particular muscle group is causing a weakness or problem in a movement, rehabilitation only focusses on relative 'isolation' movements in the most rudimentary stages. Integrating the muscle into complex movement with proper form is the bulk of the work. In fact, more advanced and effective rehabilitation paradigms, such as Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) actually dispense with all so-called 'isolation' work and use complex, multi-jointed, tri-planar movements from the outset.

[ikkainogakusei]

You are speaking unclearly here. ...As far as 'providing motion' goes, you are not specifying a meaningful context. Sure, the obliques are capable of creating these movements, but the question is, do they or should they in any functional context?

Kinesiologically, a quasi-static resistance to twisting is most definitely NOT the same moving through a range of motion, a static contraction is NOT the same as a moving one, and a fast movement is NOT the same as a slow one. Each movement and functional context is unique from the standpoint of neurological adaptation.

According to the law of training specificity, the closer the training is to the goal activity, the more carryover.

"Strength" is not necessarily useful regardless of how it is built. One must differentiate between different types of strength and different physiological components of strength to make that assessment.

The only component of strength which is not specific to movement patterns is the ability of a muscle to produce force in proportion to its cross-sectional area.

All other aspects of strength are governed by neurological adaptations which are varyingly specific to movement patttern, movement speed, and movement type.

In advanced periodized programs, there can be a limited role for exercises with movement patterns that are very dissimilar to functional movements, when employed solely to increase muscle size, but this doesn't seem to be what you are describing. For most people this kind of exercise is a waste of effort.

There is nothing so-called about static exercise. I am using it to describe an exercise in which muscles contract but the involved joints do not move. This kind of exercise has limited application to moving activities.

Since you have demonstrated a lack of familiarity with many of the concepts and terminology used in basic exercise science, I find it hard to see how you can purport to know so much about the theory and practice of training the world's greatest athletes.

It will be difficult, because for starters, it is actually physiologically impossible to isolate and work any specific muscle group under non-trivial loads - other muscle groups automatically become involved as stabilizers and synergists in any joint movement against significant resistance.

In fact, more advanced and effective rehabilitation paradigms, such as Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) actually dispense with all so-called 'isolation' work and use complex, multi-jointed, tri-planar movements from the outset.
Would you believe that Kevin has actually said that he '..deliberately strive(s) to avoid unnecessary complication in explanation...'?

Do not fall for the fundamentalist verbosity. Do the research yourself. If you find that the exercise is backed up by scientific corroberative data, then go for it.

Rhetorical tactics such as asserting 'virtually every athlete...' or confronting by questioning '...name one coach or athlete...' relies on the assumption that one would not make the effort to find this information and acquiesce. Don't do it. There are many, many paths to the top of the mountain, not everyone who proclaims to be a sherpa is one.

;)

[Kevin Wilbanks]

Rhetorical tactics such as asserting 'virtually every athlete...' or confronting by questioning '...name one coach or athlete...' relies on the assumption that one would not make the effort to find this information and acquiesce.
You mean like this?

"Do not fall for the fundamentalist verbosity. Do the research yourself. If you find that the exercise is backed up by scientific corroberative data, then go for it."

I actually have a professional credential in strength and conditioning, and I find 'doing the research myself' as you describe much harder than you make it sound. In practice, most non-scientists lack both the time and knowhow to find and interpret such studies, and the studies usually address far more narrow and specific questions than the recreational/novice trainee is asking.

The issues in my post were broad enough that I think explanatory clarity and just plain making sense are far more important. We're talking general training paradigms here, not specific rep/set protocols. This is not a professional scientific forum. If you find that the verbosity inhibits your understanding, ask for clarification.

If someone makes a claim about specific categories of athletes, I don't think asking for one example is argumentatively unfair at all. Speaking of rhetorical tactics, what about your post, which consists completely of innuendo and ad hominem attack, and fails to address a single content point?

[sanosuke]

sit up, of course. and oh, climbing three stairways to get to my dojo :)

[PeterR]

I guess I misunderstood the question.

I assumed difficulty of execution. I mean we are talking about warm-up exercises, not strength conditioning or full press stretching.

I answered go no sen kuzushi because the drill besides being every aerobic in nature is technically very complicated to get right.

[erikmenzel]

I dont care about most difficult or easiest.

[justinm]

Yoshinkan kihon dosa works for me. I think the most effective warm ups are those that mirror the actual upcoming activity but at a slower speed. It also meets the 'hardest' criteria both mentally and physically.

[deepsoup]

I assumed difficulty of execution. I mean we are talking about warm-up exercises, not strength conditioning or full press stretching.

I answered go no sen kuzushi because the drill besides being every aerobic in nature is technically very complicated to get right.
I saw the question the same way you did, Peter, and I agree entirely. I don't think I'd describe it as complicated though, I think its really quite simple, just immensely difficult! :)
Yoshinkan kihon dosa works for me. I think the most effective warm ups are those that mirror the actual upcoming activity but at a slower speed. It also meets the 'hardest' criteria both mentally and physically.
I've never had the chance to try the Yoshinkan kihon dosa, I would very much like to see what thats all about at some point.

The excercise Peter mentions is the last in the series of excercises that make up the Shodokan kihon kozo and from what I can make out, they're pretty much our equivalent of the kihon dosa. (We do them at the start of every class too.)

They're 'basic excercises' in core skills, and as such they're very difficult to do perfectly unless your core skills are also perfect. (In which case your aikido should be perfect too, and as we know, thats never going to happen for the vast majority of us!)

Sean

x

[formerjarhead]

I find the samuri walking (on your knees) the most difficult, but that may be from my bad knee.

Kihon Dosa are the Basic 6 movements. In an "open window" Air Conditioned room in the middle of summer they can really task you!!

Ni-kajo: Aikido's Verticle Aduster

[Matt Gallagher]

A bad knee will certainly not make Shikko seem an attractive exercise to practise, or indeed any suwari waza. Hope this heals!

We also practise Kihon Dosa, and I would agree that whilst seeming like a fairly easy kata to learn, it is much more difficult to master.

Still, if our overall aikido is only as strong as our basic technique it must be very worthwhile to practise this excercise regularly.

Matt

[PeterR]

I don't think I'd describe it as complicated though, I think its really quite simple, just immensely difficult! :)
I used the word complicated in that it sure has more bits and pieces than any form of push-up you care to name.

That particular exercise is one that seems to evolve as your Aikido progresses - just like ones understanding of [name deep profound book here] each time you read it.

We have one newly promoted Shodan that makes it feel like a power exercise although he is using all the elements correctly - just its what he feels he needs to work on.

My personal current emphasis is the forearm rotations and using those to break balance.

There is a yondan that is working on still another aspect of the forearm rotation.

For those that don't do this exercise imagine if you will everybody doing a series of 8 balance breaking movements, interchanging with your parner, left and right, at speed. You deal with all body types and personalities - Aikido at its most basic. There is a reason we do this exercise multiple times in a lesson.

[ikkainogakusei]

You mean like this?

"Do not fall for the fundamentalist verbosity. Do the research yourself. If you find that the exercise is backed up by scientific corroberative data, then go for it."
Okay Kevin, follow the line of reason.
Rhetorical tactics such as (x...y) rel(y) on the assumption that one would not make the effort to find this information and acquiesce
If I am encouraging others to do the research (your quote of me, first box), how does this rely on the possibility that these others not make the effort to find this information (my assertion of you)?
I actually have a professional credential in strength and conditioning.
Though admirable that you have gotten a professional credential it does not guarantee authority. Some people might assume that a professional credential is difficult to attain and requires a significant level of effort, like becoming a Registered Nurse. Many professional credentials require less training than becoming an Emergency Medical Technician (that's a single1-semester course). Some professional credentials can be as easy as a weekend seminar.

The National Council of Strength and Fitness does a weekend seminar to certify trainers and churns up plenty of personal trainers for places like 24 Hour Fitness. The Nat'l Assoc. for Fitness Certification will send one books and videos to do at home for a professional credential. One might assume that since an organization like the Nat'l Strength and Conditioning Assoc. requires a BS/BA degree, that it would only certify university graduates most qualified to work as professional personal trainers. Sadly, someone can have a degree in liberal arts, or perhaps journalism to qualify to take the 190 multiple choice question exam. ...and I find 'doing the research myself' as you describe much harder than you make it sound. No more difficult than spending the number of hours to get ...say a gokyu rank. (30 hours over time?)In practice, most non-scientists lack both the time and knowhow to find and interpret such studies, and the studies usually address far more narrow and specific questions than the recreational/novice trainee is asking. Sure, going to a scientific journal might have a narrow focus, but finding books backed by an organization like the American College of Sports Medicine would have a depth and breadth of information appropriate for info gathering.The issues in my post were broad enough that I think explanatory clarity and just plain making sense are far more important. We're talking general training paradigms here, not specific rep/set protocols. They might have been broad but they were delivered as if by a physician from the 1940's, expressing authority rather than suggesting possibility, and when one questions such information, the lay-person is brow-beaten with volcabulary or rhetorical debate tactics. Bummer.This is not a professional scientific forum. If you find that the verbosity inhibits your understanding, ask for clarification. ^ Ad Hominem innuendo.

Uh, no if you've read any post that I've given (not that you have to) you'd know that I'm confortable with verbosity and quite loquacious myself. I am happy to ask for clarification when necessary. As for my understanding of kinesiology, exercise physiology, motor-learning, neuromotor control, and biomechanics, I think it's adequate enough for this forum.If someone makes a claim about specific categories of athletes, I don't think asking for one example is argumentatively unfair at all. Yes, but have you noticed that the thread is 'what's your hardest warmup exercise?' and not 'tell us what is right or wrong about our warmup and we'll take it on faith that you're right.' People are simply discussing a difficult aspect of a particular warmup. There are plenty of threads which ask for input, why nudge in here?Speaking of rhetorical tactics, what about your post, which consists completely of innuendo and ad hominem attack, and fails to address a single content point? I have addressed content points with you before and you seem to conveniently ignore the referenced information or backpeddal and spin. In any case, my objection is not the content but the delivery and context.

:triangle:

[Kevin Wilbanks]

Perhaps you should follow the line of reason. You were calling what I said into question and exhorting others to instead do the research themselves. You know well that no one is going to go out to a research library and pore over journals to try and find information about specificity, PNF, and isolationist training/rehabilitation paradigms, so such an exhortion is a similar tactic to asking someone for examples who likely has none.

I was not invoking my credential as any kind of guarantee of authority, nor did I make even a hint of an argument from authority. I presented this information because, as someone who is involved in the field and even subscribes to one of the main journals, I find doing the research as you describe it a lot of work, and often difficult to translate into practical information about how to work out or train people. To someone who doesn't even know the name of the journals, or who doesn't even understand basic concepts and terminology of exercise science, your suggestion is absurdly impractical... but it sure makes you sound like a picture of wisdom and equanimity.

I fail to see how you can be so squeamish about the rigorous dialectical/debate style of learning, yet so fond of doing the same yourself, yet with so little emphasis on content and so much on personal attack. It seems a hypocritical pose. I have never seen it written in stone that one must slavishly stick to posted thread topics either. These are conversational message boards, and sometimes conversations drift. If someone makes claims or recommendations which I think are misleading or possibly dangerous, I see no problem with arguing against them.

As far as your conclusion goes, that's just more vague slander and innuendo. My version of what happened is quite different. I recall that you kept taking the debate into abstruse, academic directions that had little conceivable practical relevance to actually doing exercise, or the nature of the debate which you were trying to join. In any case, once again, you have offered another post which elaborately says little more than "I don't like you."

[Matt Gallagher]

Why, oh why didn't I take the Blue pill?

;)

[ikkainogakusei]

Perhaps you should follow the line of reason. You were calling what I said into question and exhorting others to instead do the research themselves. yes
You know well that no one is going to go out to a research library and pore over journals to try and find information about specificity, PNF, and isolationist training/rehabilitation paradigms, so such an exhortion is a similar tactic to asking someone for examples who likely has none. Eh, no. I said do research that was coroborated scientifically, not 'go to a research library' not 'find these specific things' and not to look at esoteric exercise science journals. There are books which are backed through more than opinion, that will allow one to follow references, yet will not be so microcosmic as to be minutely useful to a training program.

Books which are written by people in the field of biomechanics and exercise physiology are readily available and can be written to the level of novice to expert. If a person uses a baloney tester and looks at the qualifications of the writer, how many times that writer has been referenced in other fitness books, and looking at the date and breadth of references then it allows them to be more active in their own health. I was not invoking my credential as any kind of guarantee of authority, nor did I make even a hint of an argument from authority. 'kay.
I presented this information because, as someone who is involved in the field and even subscribes to one of the main journals, I find doing the research as you describe it a lot of work, and often difficult to translate into practical information about how to work out or train people. I think you find doing the research which you have projected as my description may be difficult, but doing research is no more difficult than finding any other information. It's good that you subscribe to one journal, I'd like to encourage you to read more than one, if this is your field of work. ; ) To someone who doesn't even know the name of the journals, or who doesn't even understand basic concepts and terminology of exercise science, your suggestion is absurdly impractical... Again, your projection of my assertion is impractical. I did not require what you assume. but it sure makes you sound like a picture of wisdom and equanimity. Not my intent, not my status, but thanks for the compliment.
I fail to see how you can be so squeamish about the rigorous dialectical/debate style of learning, yet so fond of doing the same yourself, yet with so little emphasis on content and so much on personal attack. Again I'm not attacking your person. I do not know you as a person. This is me still not attacking you as a person. It_is_the_manner_in which you choose to present, and_the_context.
If someone makes claims or recommendations which I think are misleading or possibly dangerous, I see no problem with arguing against them. But no one made a claim of 'this is a good way to improve' they were all discussing 'this was hard'. Now, I agree that the push-ups described is frightening, but it wasn't recommended.
As far as your conclusion goes, that's just more vague slander and innuendo. I don't think there is anything vague about it. What would you like me to clairfy? My version of what happened is quite different. I recall that you kept taking the debate into abstruse, academic directions that had little conceivable practical relevance to actually doing exercise, or the nature of the debate which you were trying to join. Uh, let's see...I started with 'weight training is fine, cardio is good, ...specificity of training requires a closer look.' you then said "It seems that countering this kind of cartoonish thinking is my job here" Now, I started by dicussing things in general terms, then you insisted (by cartoonish I assume) that I was oversimplifying and lacking depth. With that I gave references and depth. You then leapt to the 'too much' side, which lead into a loop where you conveniently meander between too much and not enough.In any case, once again, you have offered another post which elaborately says little more than "I don't like you." Nope. Again I don't know you, I cannot judge you as a human being, and wouldn't. Instead I'd like to say that your tactics in discussing fitness are poor, and limited.

:triangle:

[Kevin Wilbanks]

But no one made a claim of 'this is a good way to improve' they were all discussing 'this was hard'. Now, I agree that the push-ups described is frightening, but it wasn't recommended.
I see a warning about nikkyo pushups as a public service. As far as the full-blown polemic which set you off goes, you may want to review the record: just prior to that Dave recommended exercises which I consider relatively useless, and also called them 'the best', based upon what I see as an uninformed training philosophy. Looked like fair game to me.

Instead I'd like to say that your tactics in discussing fitness are poor, and limited.
Poor and limited, or just not to your taste? I submit that the art of polemic and adversarial debate has an illustrious history in western thought, and many of my favorite thinkers practice(d) it. I would argue that it is only a poor vehicle when one party gets emotional and goes ad hominem becasue they can't stand the heat. If all parties involved stick to the subject and keep their skins thick, it can be a much more efficient way of learning than methods in which one buries points of conflict under layers of apology and PC happy talk. I see the kind of rhetorical flourish that you find so horrific as just part of good sporting intellectual fun. Since I think most things intellectual are optional in life, I'm afraid doing it your way would make it too dull for me to find worth pursuing.

[Dave Miller]

You know well that no one is going to go out to a research library and pore over journals to try and find information about specificity, PNF, and isolationist training/rehabilitation paradigms, so such an exhortion is a similar tactic to asking someone for examples who likely has none.Actually, my statement was based on my workouts with a friend who is a former trainer with the US women's volleyball team. He has been involved in the Pan Am games and was in Seoul, I believe. He is also an avid cyclist. I have another friend from whom I gleaned some of my info who, althoug never in the olympics, was nationally ranked ameteur mtn. and road cyclist.

[ikkainogakusei]

just prior to that Dave recommended exercises which I consider relatively useless, and also called them 'the best', based upon what I see as an uninformed training philosophy. Looked like fair game to me. Before that Matt Gallagher asked for a secret, which you replied to, and then began to descend into the false authority position as if what you said is a given in the whole of the industry, which is inaccurate. Later, I'll admit, you said 'in my view..' which lends itself to possibility, but these moments are rare. Additionally, you have made assertions, which others have responded to counter, and you back off (e.g. scientific studies on glucosamine, or anatomical vs. kinesiological function of the obliques), good for you. The problem is that if there's no calling you on something you seem to prefer to make false blanket statements, and bully others with jargon.
Poor and limited, or just not to your taste? Yes, all three (sans just). I submit that the art of polemic and adversarial debate has an illustrious history in western thought, and many of my favorite thinkers practice(d) it. Yes, but this isn't a debate forum. I would argue that it is only a poor vehicle when one party gets emotional and goes ad hominem becasue they can't stand the heat. Well, if that was inneundo ad hominem, I'll try to not get emotional. ;)

My argument is not the discussion, but the misleading manner in which you deliver it. I am imparting that pretending that the advice you give as an absolute is fallacious, and bullying those who are seeking advice is in poor taste. If all parties involved stick to the subject and keep their skins thick, it can be a much more efficient way of learning than methods in which one buries points of conflict under layers of apology and PC happy talk. Uh, didn't you say... I have never seen it written in stone that one must slavishly stick to posted thread topics either. You don't need to bury points, just clarify. Do not pretend that something is absolutely useless or useful. Even people who hold doctorates in their respective fields involving exercise science disagree, and are not clear on some things, to pretend and to insist that something is an absolute is in poor form. I see the kind of rhetorical flourish that you find so horrific as just part of good sporting intellectual fun. But less sporting when you decide to debate fitness with people who are not in the industry. Kind of like a shodan going to a young kids class and plowing through them with no restraint. Maybe fun, but really not sporting. Since I think most things intellectual are optional in life, I'm afraid doing it your way would make it too dull for me to find worth pursuing. What I would ask then Kevin is; what do you get out of it, if not to provide information to your community?

[Kevin Wilbanks]

Before that Matt Gallagher asked for a secret, which you replied to, and then began to descend into the false authority position as if what you said is a given in the whole of the industry, which is inaccurate. Later, I'll admit, you said 'in my view..' which lends itself to possibility, but these moments are rare.
Let's look at this, and see exactly what kind of obfuscatory game you're playing. Here's the quote in question:

"Of course, to me the question is: why bother? What carryover to the dynamic variety of activities involved in Aikido can one expect from developing the ability to hold your body in a static v-shape for long periods of time? I would say almost none."

I cannot find a way to interpret this in which unanimous agreement in the whole of the fitness industry is implied. I didn't sign my post with an NSCA-CSCS at the end either. Moreover, I think I laid out the issue such that my line of reasoning is pretty clear, and the absurdity of expecting significant carryover in this situation is apparent.

At the risk straying back to the actual subject, it's analogous to expecting static lateral holds with a dumbbell to improve your tennis game. Absurd. Anyone with any grasp of the concept of the principle of training specificity should be able to see this. Although I can't speak for the industry and didn't pretend to, I can't imagine anyone outside of a well-paid Pilates spokesperson disagreeing with it. If there's a good argument to the contrary, I'd like to hear it.
Additionally, you have made assertions, which others have responded to counter, and you back off (e.g. scientific studies on glucosamine, or anatomical vs. kinesiological function of the obliques), good for you. The problem is that if there's no calling you on something you seem to prefer to make false blanket statements, and bully others with jargon.
Talk about argumentative flourish. I "prefer to make false blanket statements"? Who prefers to make false statements? I admit the possiblity that some of my statements may be false - to me this is trivially true and not worth constantly reiterating - but to imply that I state falsely, knowingly is pretty dirty pool, in my book. The way a debate works is that false statements are challenged with evidence or convincing counter-arguments. No convincing counter: falsehoods win the day. If the assertions are really false, vigilant polemicists will bring them down on another.
My argument is not the discussion, but the misleading manner in which you deliver it. I am imparting that pretending that the advice you give as an absolute is fallacious, and bullying those who are seeking advice is in poor taste. Uh, didn't you say... You don't need to bury points, just clarify. Do not pretend that something is absolutely useless or useful. Even people who hold doctorates in their respective fields involving exercise science disagree, and are not clear on some things, to pretend and to insist that something is an absolute is in poor form.
As far as the implication of authority goes... I don't understand. Are you implying that you or a significant portion of the onlookers is too philosophically naive to understand that when I say something it is me who is saying it, which is by definition my opinion? Who else's opinion would it be? Do you expect me to wax self-effacement with every single statement? I geniuinely believe and advocate what I genuinely believe and advocate, so why wouldn't I do so with confidence?
But less sporting when you decide to debate fitness with people who are not in the industry. Kind of like a shodan going to a young kids class and plowing through them with no restraint. Maybe fun, but really not sporting.
I do debate in other places with people far more knowledgeable than me. I'm a little more careful in expression, but I still get handed my ass sometimes. Different game. Different learning opportunity. As far as sport goes, one man's is apparently not another's.
What I would ask then Kevin is; what do you get out of it, if not to provide information to your community?
Fun. Distraction. Self-education, if nothing else. And, no regrets, as I'm not offering any information or expression disingenuously. I fear if I attempted to adhere to your code of wishy-washy expression for the preprogrammed and neutered that last one would be out the window.

[akiy]

Hi folks,

Can people kindly take your discussion/argument regarding personal issues to private messages or private e-mail? There's nothing to prove by posting them here, publically. Thank you.

-- Jun

[ikkainogakusei]

Hi folks,

Can people kindly take your discussion/argument regarding personal issues to private messages or private e-mail? There's nothing to prove by posting them here, publically. Thank you.

-- Jun
Sure Jun, my apologies.

[Kevin Wilbanks]

Hi folks,

Can people kindly take your discussion/argument regarding personal issues to private messages or private e-mail? There's nothing to prove by posting them here, publically. Thank you.

-- Jun
Is this really using up that many electrons? There may not be anything to prove, but it's a lot more fun. Arguing with someone you don't know in private seems kinda solipsistic and pointless to me - without the addition of an exhibitionist element, it just doesn't have the same zing.

Hey, it's your board. Censor away. This is starting to seem like some sort of deconstructionist etiquitte game: who can outsop the milksops on a higher level of analysis? Any bystander handy who fancies himself a meta-meta-meta-milksop?

[Dave Miller]

Hi folks,

Can people kindly take your discussion/argument regarding personal issues to private messages or private e-mail? There's nothing to prove by posting them here, publically. Thank you.

-- JunNo problem, Jun. Sorry.

:blush: