And what about fat men?

Paul,

We have gone off at quite a tangent haven't we. Your "rant" didn't read like a rant to me, and I didn't find anything in it to disagree with. Thanks for your input.

Kevin,

I'll take both those posts together if I may..

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: Since you seemed to ignore the most important explanatory parts of my post, I'm not sure how to rebut

Dont worry about it, I'll give it a few days and then re-read, maybe I'll get it then.

Thanks for the references, I'll look out for them.

I strongly disagree that fitness training for Aikido is a waste of time. Those who excel at every sport and physical discipline devote a portion of their time to supplemental conditioning exercise for good reasons: to prevent injury and improve performance. Aikido is no different.

I agree entirely. As a member of the very small minority for whom aikido is a competitive sport as well as a martial art, I could hardly disagree with you that fitness training is indeed important.

I never meant to suggest that fitness training was a waste of time, what I actually said was that "time spent gaining muscle rather than learning technique" is a waste of time.

My point about strength training vs learning technique was merely this: If someone thinks they're not strong enough to perform an aikido technique, that person is (almost always) mistaken. It is their technique that is lacking, not their strength. Therefore, it is counterproductive to try to get stronger at the expense of trying to learn to do the technique correctly.

Gaining weight disproportional to accompanying strength wouldn't necessarily be a training error. It would be in sports with weight classes, or potentially those in which propelling the body's own weight was essential to the activity - like rock climbing.

Going back to before I went off on this tangent, the discussion was about whether a larger aikidoist can be expected to move as quickly as a smaller one. Since movement in aikido is not in a straight line, I consider short-term acceleration to be the key to 'quickness' in aikido, rather than straight line top speed. As such, I consider propelling the body's own weight to be essential to aikido also.

Even there, it's not so simple. If one's latissimus dorsi, biceps, and forearms became 30% more massive, but one "only" became 20% stronger at pull ups, would this be a climbing hindrance? I doubt it. The total weight gain might be two or three pounds, whereas a 20% strength gain at pullups is huge - for me that would mean an addition of around 50 pounds to my 1RM.

Very good point. No doubt this is why so many climbers aspire to look like weight lifters from the waist up and long distance runners from the waist down.

Similarly, the ideal aikidoka's frame might marry the legs and hips of a sprinter to the arms and shoulders of a marathon runner.

For Aikido, more weight is probably generally an asset for throwing and a liability for falling, in terms of long term wear and tear. However, once again, from what I've seen, those with the worst wear and tear problems are those with no supplementary fitness regime who lack the muscular strength to maintain postural integrity and protect joints.

More weight may indeed be something of an asset for throwing in terms of idoryoku. (Idoryoku is 'the power of body movement') More strength, on the other hand, is not something I'd consider an asset for throwing. It may even be counter-productive if it masks deficiencies in technique which would otherwise become apparent.

In terms of falling, more weight definitely does seem to be something of a liability, and not just in the long term. As with 'speed', falling is something I would suggest that heavier people need to work at more than their lighter training partners.

Regards

Sean

x

If someone thinks they're not strong enough to perform an aikido technique, that person is (almost always) mistaken. It is their technique that is lacking, not their strength.

The sooner students learn this, the better.

But one thing I've noticed in recent years is that young students lack a strong enough grip to even be able to hang on. They just let go, stand there, and say, "I can't hold you!"

As a result, this summer we worked almost entirely on two things: Ken, partly in an effort to increase grip strength; and katate-tori tenkan waza in an effort to teach uke to "hang on" and move his ass!

For those who attended classes regulary, the training worked.

When we begin aikido training, things aren't as natural and easy as we might expect.

P.S. I learned an important lesson when I used to work with mentally and physically challenged individuals. If things aren't going well during classes, DON'T BLAME THE CLIENT. Take responsibility by making adjustments in the program. This often involves breaking things down into smaller steps.

P.P.S. Aikido doesn't teach you everything. It doesn't teach you how to swim for example. It would be unfortunate if someone spent 20 years mastering aikido, and then one day, while on holiday, he fell out of a boat and drowned.

"Since movement in aikido is not in a straight line, I consider short-term acceleration to be the key to 'quickness' in aikido, rather than straight line top speed."

I think you are trying to make a distinction here in which there is no practical difference in terms of what we are talking about - the supposed trade-off between bulk and mobility. Quickness, accleration, speed... they all fall under the category of speed-strength or power. There are no straight lines in human movement, as all joints spin or rotate around fulcra. Every movement that starts from non-movement involves acceleration, and usually just as much decceleration at the end, whether that is provided externally or internally.

As far as strength being irrelevant to Aikido - admitting the importance of speed-strength, acceleration, quickness, or whatever you want to call it to Aikido contradicts this. Relevent factors responsible for acceleration such as contractility of the neuromuscular system, recruitment of sacromeres, velocity of muscle shortening can be improved through power training such as plyometrics, explosive weight training etc... Plus, as Mike suggests, a certain amount of beginning strength is needed in order to be able to grip properly, maintain shoulder stability, squat during koshinage, etc...

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: I think you are trying to make a distinction here in which there is no practical difference in terms of what we are talking about - the supposed trade-off between bulk and mobility. Quickness, accleration, speed... they all fall under the category of speed-strength or power.

hmm... you may have something here. I'll have a bit of a ponder..

As far as strength being irrelevant to Aikido - admitting the importance of speed-strength, acceleration, quickness, or whatever you want to call it to Aikido contradicts this.

Whoa neddy! I didn't say strength is irrelevant to aikido, what I said was:

"If someone thinks they're not strong enough to perform an aikido technique, that person is (almost always) mistaken"

I'm pretty sure thats not the same thing at all. RTFP, as they say on Usenet.

And with that, I think I've contributed all I can to this thread. Time for me to follow PAW's lead and make a dignified exit. Thanks to all for putting up with my nonsense.

Regards

Sean

x

Well, I have been thin, and now I am somewhat fat and middleaged, so I guess I have the experience to speak on this subject.

The changes from being in gymnastic shape to do an 'L' seat to a handstand, then growing old and somewhat rotund to make getting up from seiza a chore, I would say I qualify.

As the old sayings go,'what you lack in speed, you make up in cunning, what you lack in cunning, make up with dirty tricks.'

The movements of Aikido are not always the use of muscular force, but I been known to pick up an uke to press the point that they were not using the proper techniques to move me. Indeed, the larger, somewhat rotund people are out of shape in relation to the younger more fit youth. Yet, we do find the means to roll, fall, move about in the practice of Aikido. Take it as the tiredness of coming back from an illness in the vain of becoming older, more rotund.

Where the average person would sit out the class, the larger older person must practice with whatever skills he/she posesses. The only danger of being too slow, or being thrown too fast by a younger aikidoka is that the more rotund will actually launch the more agile practitioner.

No pity. Just remember, not all people who are 'fat' are not truly fat. Of course, if you can't move someone, how good will your Aikido practice be?

Time for the front end loader?

AP, CHICAGO (excerpts)

Americans are even fatter than they think they are, with nearly a third of all adults — almost 59 million people — rated obese in a disturbing new government survey based on actual body measurements.

One in five Americans, or 19.8 percent, had considered themselves obese in a 2000 survey based on people's own assessments of their girth.

The new 1999-2000 survey puts the real number at 31 percent — a doubling over the past two decades. The new number is considered more reliable since people consistently underestimate their weight.

"The problem keeps getting worse," said Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson. "This has profound health implications."

In addition, a measurement-based survey of young people found that 15 percent of youngsters ages 6 to 19 were seriously overweight. That is nearly 9 million youths and triple the number in a similar assessment from 1980.

"One of the most significant concerns from a public health perspective is that we know a lot of children who are overweight grow up to be overweight or obese adults, and thus at greater risk for some major health problems such as heart disease and diabetes," said Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The findings appear in Wednesday's "Journal of the American Medical Association."

Twenty-three percent of adults were obese in 1994 and 15 percent in 1980.

Obesity increases the risk for a number of serious ailments, including diabetes, heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure and some types of cancer.

Obesity is defined as having a body-mass index of 30 or above. The index is a measure of weight relative to height.

The latest survey also found that nearly two-thirds of US adults were overweight, or had a body-mass index of between 25 and 30.

In the youth survey, even toddlers were affected, with more than 10 percent of children ages 2 through 5 seriously overweight, compared with 7.2 percent in 1994.

"The numbers are pretty shocking," said Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

"They need to put into place real policy," such as offering more healthful foods in government meal programs and requiring fast-food restaurants to list calories on menus, she said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Phil Fontanarosa, JAMA's executive deputy director, questioned whether dietary guidelines are adequate and whether doctors have been ineffective in counseling overweight patients.

My 2cents

Wow, this one's kinda complicated, huh? Here are some stream of conciousness ramblings...

Firstly, what is fitness?

If I pump you full of 'roids and train you on Oly lifts and HIIT and all the physiological markers improve (20yard dash, 1RM, Vo2 max etc) are you now fit? Not by my standards.

Similarly, is excess fat an indicator of unfitness?

Seems to me, we need to decide what fitness is and whether one can be fit and fat at the same time. For example, are folks that do the england to france channel swim "fit"? Bear in mind that they have an average 30% fat reading on the skin fold test,(which is well above the recommended 15-25%)

With that in mind, what are the likely fitness components in aikido and how much is required?

(From my ...oh 2 seconds in aikido, I can think of needing the following: - average strength, slightly above average flexibilty, average to above average cardiovascular efficiency and above average kinesthetic ability)

Secondly, how much fitness does the teacher need (assuming the above criteria)?

me - I think the guy should be at least as "fit" as his students, if possible. Humans are notriously prone to judging by first sight - if the guys fat and old, well, he / the style *must* be crap. So from that p.o.v. "fat" must cut into the profit margins ;-)

Having said that, the sensei is a mostly a technical coach, so perhaps he doesn't absolutely need to be as fit as his students?

In the end, as long as his physical condition doesn't interfer with the teaching of the art, who give a stuff what he looks like?

PS: Of course, having attributes above and beyond the minimum level *should* improve one's game.

Sigh, I was right the first time.... it's kinda complicated

Similarly, is excess fat an indicator of unfitness?

My 2 cents: Denial comes in many forms. Thank you for providing numerous examples.

Mike Lee (mike lee) wrote: My 2 cents: Denial comes in many forms. Thank you for providing numerous examples.

Not only do you refute with iron clad logic, but your insults are high brow and erudite. Let me respond in kind -

Wow, mike thanks. Bite me.

PS: I took the standard battery of ACHPER test 3 months ago as part of my theroy of movenment / exercise physiology classes. If you want to get into a pissing contest, I'm up for it.

PPS: I could be misreading your post. There's no body language on the net. If so, my bad.

If you want to get into a pissing contest, I'm up for it.

Strike a nerve Bob? Ever wonder why so many overweight people are drawn to this thread, only to defend fat with extreme vehemence rather than admit their problem?

Example:

Wow, mike thanks. Bite me.

Maybe some supplemental course work in psychology would help.

supplemental.

Please think twice, both of you, about who your intended audience is and what you are trying to say to them.

Thanks

From post No. 81 on this thread:

The latest survey also found that nearly two-thirds of US adults were overweight, or had a body-mass index of between 25 and 30.

I guess this would be my intended audience.

Reasons, also from post 81:

Obesity increases the risk for a number of serious ailments, including diabetes, heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure and some types of cancer.

Then I would say, Mike, that your concern for the welfare of the obese may need more emphasis in your posts. If that's what is really motivating you (and I believe it is), it's important to make sure the people you are addressing perceive that you are really on their side.

Then I would say, Mike, that your concern for the welfare of the obese may need more emphasis in your posts.

Would that work? I mean ultimately?

Howdy!

I'm a fat guy. It's a pain in the ass; all my brothers are skinny as rails. I got the fat gene (or whatever). I run and work out outside of class, I eat practically naught. Still fat. Oh well. I don't see it as a problem though; it's just how I am. I have to deal with it. I get red in the face and sweat like an aardvark. Does that mean I shouldn't practice? Or maybe teach someday? I think not. For what it's worth, I can run circles around some of the skinny folks: so what does that mean?

Opher Donchin (opherdonchin) wrote: supplemental.

sup-ple-men-tal adj. [E. supple, pliant or flexible + mental, of or pertaining to the mind.] of or characterized by a limber mind or intellect; mentally flexible (as, "Opher's supplemental post attempted to bring harmony to where there once was discord"); open-minded.

[quote="Mike Lee (mike lee)"Strike a nerve Bob? [QUOTE]


<deep breath... don't bite mike's head off....>

Not in the way you think Mike.

Folks who think they know a hill of beans abt me because of what they infer from one post/incident rub me the wrong way. Doubly so when they come across as arrogant, holier than thou know it alls. (like I said, could be wrong, no body language on the net)

You don't know me friend, you've never met me and yet you've put me in a little sorting box. Instead of furthering the discussion ("hey, I think you're wrong, here's why..) you come up with little snide comments.

Fact is I train in BJJ twice a week (4hrs total), judo twice a week (another 4), lift weights (2x wk), cycle routinely and walk daily.

I'm well within BMI or any other *irrelevant* yardstick you'd like to use for fitness.

Notice the *irrelevant*. The fact that my heart is x per minute, or that I weigh Z kg has zero, nada, nyet, zippo to do with fitness.

Likewise, the fact that joe bloggs is 5 kg overweight has nothing to do how fit he is for his environment. Even less with his ability to teach aikido !!

>Ever wonder why so many >overweight people are drawn to

Ever wonder why so many 5km life long joggers who are skinny as a bean pole fall over and die from heart attack?

Ever wonder if the whole concept of fitness is ass over teakettle,
*wrong*?

>with extreme vehemence rather >than admit their problem?

Vehemence? The only vehemence I see are your snide remarks.

>Maybe some supplemental course >work in psychology would help.

Got my psych diploma in '98, just before spending 3yrs studying health science.

Look I think we got off on the wrong foot here. I'm not saying that being 60 pounds overweight is great. It's not. I'm just saying that it has little to do with ones ability to teach technical skills. As for the nebulous concept of fitness...unless you really want to talk shop...let's just leave it at that.

Truce?

Actually, Bob, I'm very interested in knowing what you have to say about the definition of fitness. I can sort of understand cases where BMI or resting heart rate or whatever would misrepresent a person's fitness, but I also have always sort of imagined that they are reasonable rules of thumb or first approximations. You seem to be implying that there is something wrong with the entire concept. Can you explain that further? Also, do you have an alternative normative model for fitness?

[QUOTE="Opher Donchin >Opher Donchin >(opherdonchin)"Actually, Bob, I'm >very interested in

knowing what >you have to say about the >definition of fitness.

Sure thing - but it's a bit of a tale and I'm a wordy mutha ;-)

Bear in mind this is still a work in progress - I'm still digesting

these ideas myself. It's more of a general story so far.

Recently, I've been kicking around some ideas on what it actually means to be fit. Frankly, the trend towards compartmetalism bit me in the ass in a very personal way - pain!! I'm big, I'm strong, I know all sorts of tricks for strengthening ligaments and yet... armbar...snap..ouch. Or

choke...hack hack ZzzzzzzZzzz.

So I sat down to work things out. Why was it, I asked, did I keep

getting hurt? It makes no sense - I did what the other guys did and then

some. Why wasn't I adapting?

I wrote "fitness" in the middle of a bit of paper and just let things

freely tumble out. Oddly, where I had expected technical jargon

/training ideas, words like body control, mind, society, defence,

development came out. Oddest of all was philosophy.

Crap I thought...finally blown a gasket. Those two words look really odd

together...fitness + philosophy. I'd never learnt abt "fitness

philosophy" in psych class. Sure, Plato, Aristotle, kant, Descartes - I

knew who they were and what ideas they gave rise to. But fitness

philosophy? WTF?

So my little pea brain racked up a gear. Who invented fitness philosophy

and for what purpose?

After some more brainstorming, I came up with a link to the physical

culture movement that was popular during the early 1900's, which

triggered off links to natural medicine, which triggered off facts and

figures on human physiology.

A really dumb thing that I of all ppl should have know occurred to me

(actually, I drew a little picture of divinchi's universal man) -

holistic. Something went klunk upstairs - for fitness to work, it must

be a combination of parts. Yawn, big deal, everyone knows that these

days. I looked at my bit of paper and saw the parts (society, body

control etc). I also saw the odds and sods I had written abt physiology

and physical culture and then a thought struck me - what if fitness

didn't simply consist of putting the parts together to make something

bigger. What if fitness was "something bigger", that could be hinted at

thru certain aspects. What if, in fact, the whole concept of fitness

(physical and otherwise) was wrong?

Over the following weeks, thru uni, I did all sorts of journal searches

on health. I found some odd stuff (probably cause I used some odd search

critera!!)

And this is where I find myself today, with clashing, inconsistent bits

of data. Things that don't quite add up.

Now, replying to your questions in specific

>I can sort of understand cases where BMI

Even discounting pathology and variations in normal, I should point out

BMI is based on outdated statistics. AFAIK it doesn't take into account

somatotypes etc. I'm always leery of using one number to say "yep, your

100% fit." Fit for what?

There's all sorts of little old wives tales in the fitness world that

are presented as fact to the general populace. The old "muscles make you

sluggish" was popular for years. Or take your age from 220 to get your

max heart rate (this can be out by 60% of the true value). Or "there's

one type of force production by muscles". Or fats are bad for you, carbs

are good. Or don't use ballistic stretching...etc etc

>but I also have always sort of imagined that they are reasonable rules

>of thumb or first approximations.

Well, they're approximations, sure. But so what? This is the thing I'm

grappling with. Think of it this way - your car's fuel tank say its

full and the heat gauge says ok, but the damn thing still ain't running

at 100%. Why? All the part are good to go, and everything measures ok

and yet...

>You seem to be implying that there is something wrong with the entire

>concept. Can you explain that further?

I'll try. My belief is that there are so many old wives tales by which

ppl judge "fitness" which are either distorted or flat out wrong. What's

worse, we take the measuring of these old wives tales as proof of

fitness, without even having a clear idea of fitness is to begin with!

What is fitness??

If I can run 20km, have 10% body fat and resting pulse rate of 50, I

must be fit, yes? Meanwhile, I'm a raving lunatic at work, I slap my

kids abt, never sleep, forever drag a cold out etc.

I guess that's crux of what I'm trying to say. In context, 5, 10 15

kilos overweight means jackshit if you can achieve equilibrium with your

environment / needs. (How nauseatingly aikido of me. Bleah, I'm ashamed

of myself

> Also, do you have an alternative normative model for fitness?

I wish!! I'd sell it like hotcakes, retire and live in Hawaii!! So far,

I'm researching what fitness is. Please, what the hell is it?? What are

all the components of achieving equilibrium with ones environment /

demands and how can I keep track of them?

Like I said, I still trying to work it out... Come back in 2020, I should have it packaged

and ready to go for 4 easy payments of $19.95 (hey, by all the preaching I've done

here, maybe I could hook up with Tony Robbins ?

Just a few ideas. Obesity does, in certain cases, predispose to certain illnesses. These illnesses are not inevitable. Obesity can be nothing to do with what you eat or drink, see Samoans/Fijians/Polynesians.

Jim Fixx (sp?) died of a massive heart attack whilst out jogging. Post mortem discovered massive arterial plaque. Douglas Adams died whilst excercising, same findings post mortem.
I have a BMI of 31 and train regularly, my late father had a BMI of 29 and was a championship mile runner in his day. Obesity can be caused by self-abuse or lack of self-discipline. It can also be genetic.

Just a disjointed stream of thoughts, sorry.

Have fun

As a "ig man" I really do appreciate this thread. It has confirmed for me that "big men" should not demonstrate. The general public, including Aikidokas, would only see the size and not the technqiue.

I tell my Sensei this everytime he ask me to demonstrate. He thinks Aikidokas are beyond the stereotypical pettiness.

Thanks for letting me know that I am right and saving me and my Sensei the embarassment.

Until again,

Lynn

An excellent (IMO) definition of fitness can be found here:

http://www.crossfit.com/misc/found.html#athlete

Crossfit trains many elite athletes, including Garth Taylor, an American Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu blackbelt who got second place in last year's world competition. Although many would consider him overweight, he is in world class physical condition. An amazing force on the mat, technically and physically.

Roy

Hi folks,

Please watch your tone when posting here on the AikiWeb Forums, regardless of the topic being discussed. Inability to do so may result in your account being disabled without any notice. Thank you.

-- Jun

you must've gotten the wrong thread jun. This one for once was being handled real well. Interesting thoughts coming up.

Fact is I train in BJJ twice a week (4hrs total), judo twice a week (another 4), lift weights (2x wk), cycle routinely and walk daily.

That's great! Where's the aikido? ?

Anyway, this isn't the fitness thread -- it's the FAT thread.

It's not about people who are naturally large, have a medical or genetic problem -- it's about people who eat and drink too much, never take ukemi, but feel content that they can take ONE forward roll without breathing hard. It's not about cultural biases -- another smokescreen to the root problem.

Someday, there will be a perfect storm for someone (AC broke, high heat and humidity, too much caffine, add a little stress) and KABOOM!!! A heart attack or stroke.

There's also a question as to whether such instructors are good role models for youth.

The solution resides in ditching the excusses and getting out of denial, changing the diet, and adding exercise (ideally aerobic) to start burning calories.

Once again, the issue here is FAT, and how to get rid of it. Discussions on FITNESS should be on a new thread.

I'm bored with smokescreens. I would be interested to hear about some constructive solutions, such as diets that work, calorie ratios, etc.