Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > General

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-04-2002, 08:30 PM   #51
paw
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 768
Offline
Sean,
Quote:
I've read that if you increase the mass of a muscle by 100% you only increase its power by 60%, so as you get bigger and stronger your power/weight ratio actually goes down.
I'd like to see where you read that. That doesn't make sense to me, and sounds like the result of a studying a specific training method or specific group rather than a general truism.

Regards,

Paul
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2002, 11:11 PM   #52
guest1234
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 915
Offline
I think smaller people are faster because they have to be to compensate for size. Small and slow just won't cut it, and survival is challenging. Larger folk can get way with more due to their size, but... as Erik says (and he should know, the NL is definately the Land of the Giants) big foks can move if they want to:

The other day another student and I were commenting about our instructor, whom some would liken to a mountain of muscle. He moves darned fast for a big guy, I said. Heck, (OK, some words are cleaned up for the minors in the audience ), my friend replied (who has had a few rough turns as demo dummy), he moves darned fast for anyone. And he was right.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 02:22 AM   #53
erikmenzel
  AikiWeb Forums Contributing Member
 
erikmenzel's Avatar
Dojo: Koshinkai Leeuwarden
Location: Leeuwarden
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 594
Netherlands
Offline
Quote:
Sean Orchard (deepsoup) wrote:
What is it about the Netherlands that makes everyone so tall!? Is it something to do with living below sea level?
Well, officialy it is because we use a lot of dairy products (calcium) and sent our children to bed early. (human growth hormone is produced while sleeping)

Unofficialy, it is because our country is surrounded by dykes to keep the water out. Evolution worked in such a way that those people who were able to look over the dykes had a better chance of survival.
Quote:
At least as far as quick goes, theres no reason a big person cant do it, but there are reasons its harder than it is for a small person.
And in my believe, the mental reason "I am big so I cant be quick and lightly moving" is the most important reason why it is hard.

Erik Jurrien Menzel
kokoro o makuru taisanmen ni hirake
Personal:www.kuipers-menzel.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 02:50 AM   #54
Edward
Location: Bangkok
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 803
Thailand
Offline
Quote:
paul watt (paw) wrote:
Sean,



I'd like to see where you read that. That doesn't make sense to me, and sounds like the result of a studying a specific training method or specific group rather than a general truism.

Regards,

Paul
This is common knowledge. Maybe the 100 to 60 % ratio is just an approximation by I too have heard about it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 03:40 AM   #55
erikmenzel
  AikiWeb Forums Contributing Member
 
erikmenzel's Avatar
Dojo: Koshinkai Leeuwarden
Location: Leeuwarden
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 594
Netherlands
Offline
Quote:
Edward Karaa (Edward) wrote:
This is common knowledge.
I would not put my money on common knowledge.

It often turns out that common knowledge is highly cultural determined and wrong.

Just because everybody believes it, that doesnt make it true.

Erik Jurrien Menzel
kokoro o makuru taisanmen ni hirake
Personal:www.kuipers-menzel.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 05:03 AM   #56
paw
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 768
Offline
Edward,

I'd like to see something more formal than common sense. As a counter example, consider some world records in powerlifting.

Carlsson (@ 56 kg) squatted 287.5 kg

Alexander (@ 75 kg) squatted 328 kg

Coan (@ 100 kg) squatted 423 kg

All three men performed these lifts in basically the same amount of time. Since power is work / time and work is force * distance. I may be displaying my misunderstanding of basic physics, but it looks to me that the larger lifters are generating more power (particularly since the larger lifter surely moving weight a slightly longer distance).

Oh, in the event I'm wrong, I blame the US educations system, of which I am a product...

Regards,

Paul
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 09:08 AM   #57
mike lee
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 646
Offline
power mongers

It's been my experience that those who rely on mass and strength require the most time to learn aikido. Sometimes they never learn. All I can say is if you want to take this approach, you are wasting your time.

Fast feet are essential to good aikido. If you think you can get away with slow, lethargic movements, try going up against a trained swordsman swinging a live sword sometime and see how long you last.

Out muscling each other will teach you nothing. Imagine that you are 108 years old and recovering from the flu -- now how does your aikido work?

P.S. Years ago I could easily bench press 230 lbs. Today I can easily throw someone weighing 330 lbs. It's all about postioning, movement, and technique -- not strength. It's a thinking man's/woman's game.

Last edited by mike lee : 09-05-2002 at 09:23 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 02:08 PM   #58
Chuck Clark
 
Chuck Clark's Avatar
Dojo: Jiyushinkan
Location: Monroe, Washington
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,134
United_States
Offline
I know some big guys that have very quick feet and hands. Those of you that think being big is synonomous with using lots of muscle inefficiently, you might want to check out Wang Shu Chi. He was a legendary teacher of internal style Chinese arts. He was about 5'8" and weighed somewhere around 300 lbs. or more.

Regards,

Chuck Clark
Jiyushinkai Aikibudo
www.jiyushinkai.org
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 03:50 PM   #59
Alfonso
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 346
Offline
I think Erminio hit a sore spot for Aikidoka. I mean the rush of replies ..

... this guy still hasn't gone to his first class, is admitedly purely concerned over his vanity.. and wow he's got everyone jumping!

go to any Aikido dojo and you'll feel and experience the effectiveness of the teachers regardless of their shape.

(from another guy on the heavy side)
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 04:33 PM   #60
deepsoup
Dojo: Sheffield Shodokan Dojo
Location: Sheffield, UK
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 524
Offline
Quote:
paul watt (paw) wrote:
Sean,

I'd like to see where you read that
(About the thing where a 100% increase in muscle mass produces a 60%ish increase in power.)

Here it is:

Performance Rock Climbing

Dale Goddard and Udo Neumann

Stackpole Books, 1993

ISBN: 1 871890 72 1

Rock climbing is unsurprisingly a sport in which strength relative to weight is a major issue, the book is very detailed, very scientific, and has more to say that is relevant to budo practice than you might expect. (Thats not why I bought it, I also climb, though not to a very high standard.)

There are about a dozen references cited for the chapter that number crops up in (its the chapter on 'strength', btw), but they dont specify which one they got it from. My best guess is that its one of these:

Komi, P.V., ed. Strength and Power in Sports. Boston: Blackwell, 1992

McMahon, T.A. Muscles, Reflexes and Locomotion. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984

Schmidt, R.F., ed. Strength and Power in Sport. Boston, Blackwell, 1992

I agree with Erik, on the subject of 'common knowledge', btw.

Sean
x

ps: I did some more maths with the power-lifters. Coan is 78.6% heavier than Carlsson, but only 47.1% more powerful, than means proportionately his power is up over Carlssons by 60% as much as his weight is.
(Could be a coincidence, of course. )

Last edited by deepsoup : 09-05-2002 at 05:46 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 05:24 PM   #61
deepsoup
Dojo: Sheffield Shodokan Dojo
Location: Sheffield, UK
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 524
Offline
Quote:
paul watt (paw) wrote:
Edward,

I'd like to see something more formal than common sense. As a counter example, consider some world records in powerlifting.

Carlsson (@ 56 kg) squatted 287.5 kg

Alexander (@ 75 kg) squatted 328 kg

Coan (@ 100 kg) squatted 423 kg

All three men performed these lifts in basically the same amount of time. Since power is work / time and work is force * distance. I may be displaying my misunderstanding of basic physics, but it looks to me that the larger lifters are generating more power (particularly since the larger lifter surely moving weight a slightly longer distance).

Oh, in the event I'm wrong, I blame the US educations system, of which I am a product...
Your physics is fine, but actually I think, your example supports my post, heres why:

When we talk about someone being 'fast' in aikido, what we're really talking about is acceleration. Thats because aikido isn't about just moving in a straight line at a constant speed, in aikido a 'fast' person is someone who can speed up, change direction and slow down again rapidly.

(ie: When you tenkan you go from a standstill at A, get moving, turn around and then stop again at B.)

Newton's second law (I think its the second), says that Force = Mass x Acceleration. So for a given acceleration, if you double the mass you're trying to move you've got to double the force you're applying to move it.

In aikido what we're mainly trying to move is our own bodies. In your example, Coan is 79% heavier than Carlsson, but he only lifts 47% more.

Same with Coan/Alexander and Alexander/Carlsson: yes the heavier man is more powerful than the lighter man, but in each case his weight has gone up by more than his power has.

That means that if instead of lifting weights, they were using that power to accelerate their own bodies, Carlsson would accelerate faster than Alexander, who in turn would accelerate faster than Coan.

Sean

x
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 08:37 PM   #62
paw
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 768
Offline
a brief interruption in the thread......

Sean,

Thanks for the reference, I'll check it out. I had a feeling the study was sport specific (my gut feeling was gymnastics, actually).

I never had any doubts about proportionality or strength/weight ratios, only absolute power, which is a different animal. In any case, when I'm done reading it, we could discuss what is budo relevant about the study if you want.

Thanks to all for this tangential discussion.

Regards,

Paul
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 08:37 PM   #63
Chris Li
 
Chris Li's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido Sangenkai
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,313
United_States
Offline
Quote:
C.E. Clark (Chuck Clark) wrote:
I know some big guys that have very quick feet and hands. Those of you that think being big is synonomous with using lots of muscle inefficiently, you might want to check out Wang Shu Chi. He was a legendary teacher of internal style Chinese arts. He was about 5'8" and weighed somewhere around 300 lbs. or more.

Regards,
Then there was that other guy, Morihei Ueshiba - no 300 lbs., but at 5'2" and over 180 lbs. he was pretty hefty for his size. Didn't seem to slow him down all that much, either...

Best,

Chris

  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2002, 09:02 AM   #64
Guest5678
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 135
Offline
Quote:
Christopher Li (Chris Li) wrote:
Then there was that other guy, Morihei Ueshiba - no 300 lbs., but at 5'2" and over 180 lbs. he was pretty hefty for his size. Didn't seem to slow him down all that much, either...

Best,

Chris
Chris,

Really? Is that what he weighed? Man, at 5'10" and 210 lbs, I don't feel so bad now!

Thanks!

-Mongo
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2002, 11:14 AM   #65
Chuck Clark
 
Chuck Clark's Avatar
Dojo: Jiyushinkan
Location: Monroe, Washington
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,134
United_States
Offline
Hi Mongo,

You feel fine to me! Big guys that think big & powerful are one thing...a big guy that thinks like he's small and not very strong is a real problem to deal with.

Later,

Chuck Clark
Jiyushinkai Aikibudo
www.jiyushinkai.org
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2002, 01:39 PM   #66
Guest5678
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 135
Offline
Quote:
C.E. Clark (Chuck Clark) wrote:
Hi Mongo,

You feel fine to me! Big guys that think big & powerful are one thing...a big guy that thinks like he's small and not very strong is a real problem to deal with.

Later,
Clark sensei,

Paul delivered your message and my head still hurts! HA! Not sure where I actually fit into your post here, but thanks! Big body small mind is probably a better discription of me though....

We really enjoy your dojo newsletter!

Take care!

-Mongo
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2002, 01:48 PM   #67
Erik
Location: Bay Area
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,200
Offline
Quote:
Christopher Li (Chris Li) wrote:
Then there was that other guy, Morihei Ueshiba - no 300 lbs., but at 5'2" and over 180 lbs. he was pretty hefty for his size. Didn't seem to slow him down all that much, either...

Best,

Chris
Did anyone ever put that man on a scale?

I just can't buy that he weighed 180 pounds. I'd guess something much more like 5' 140/150 pounds. Even in the photos of him in the 30's, where he looks really solid, he still doesn't look that heavy to me and he certainly wasn't in his older years. I dunno, maybe he was but the height/weight ratio just doesn't work for me on someone 5' tall.

I think it a lot like an NBA player. They'll come into the league and in their first year they are 6' 9" tall. A few years later they wind up 6' 10" and by the end of their careers they are 6' 11".
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2002, 04:18 PM   #68
Chris Li
 
Chris Li's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido Sangenkai
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,313
United_States
Offline
Quote:
Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote:
Did anyone ever put that man on a scale?

I just can't buy that he weighed 180 pounds. I'd guess something much more like 5' 140/150 pounds. Even in the photos of him in the 30's, where he looks really solid, he still doesn't look that heavy to me and he certainly wasn't in his older years. I dunno, maybe he was but the height/weight ratio just doesn't work for me on someone 5' tall.
That's according to accounts by both Sunadomari and K. Ueshiba. Believe it or not, as you will .

Best,

Chris

  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2002, 02:18 AM   #69
Kevin Wilbanks
Location: Seattle/Southern Wisconsin
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 788
Offline
Without looking at any references, I have to say that the figure of muscle mass increase only resulting in a 60% relative increase in power sounds like a misapplication of information. Biomechanics and physiology are quite complicated, and one should always beware of applying simple physics to an issue of sporting performance if one is not well versed in the relevant theory and research.

First of all, making a correlation between muscle mass and power is virtually meaningless in any practical context. Either this has been misapplied from the book, or the authors of the book themselves have misapplied it, as I can't see how this is relevant to rock climbing. Unless one is racing up a cliff, rock climbing is not about power anyway.

Speaking practically, power is not only about moving a weight or against resistance a certain distance, but is also determined by the speed in which the distance is covered. When it comes to measuring power, speed is just as important as force. The ability of a muscle to produce power is more a function of neurological adaptation than amount of muscle material, especially at higher speeds, although muscle size can be a limiting factor. Even when the element of speed is removed, and one is only measuring how much resistance can be moved how far (strength), neural adaptations are key, both in terms of how the motor units are recruited and the rate at which they are fired.

Now you might think that if you kept all things equal, then you could compare power output at X muscle weight to power output at 2X muscle weight, but not so. How you went about achieving the increase in muscle weight is the whole story.

If you pumped the subject full of steroids, strapped them in a bed, and achieved the muscle weight that way, the increase in power would likely be zero.

If they gained the mass via resistance training, it would depend upon what type of training they did. Using slow rep, medium resistance bodybuilding methods specifically designed to build mass as the only goal, you might well get a disproportionately low power increase compared to the mass increase. This is not surprising because this type of training generally emphasizes the volume of work the muscle can do, not the muscle's power limits.

On the other hand, the muscle could be trained via Olympic Weightlifting, or some other method in which one was training expressly for maximal power, like sprinting or jumping. By the time it had acheived the specified increase in mass via this type of training, the muscle could easily be capable of expressing many times the original power output.

Anyway, this is getting long. The main point is, that 60% figure isn't 'common knowledge', and it really doesn't even make sense. In general, fears about muscle mass slowing one down or lessening one's mobility are largely ephemeral. If the muscle is achieved through smart, scientifically-based training appropriate to one's functional objectives, it can only help. Even if the muscle is acheived by ignorant training methods and dumb luck, it will still probably help.

Kevin Wilbanks, CSCS

Last edited by Kevin Wilbanks : 09-07-2002 at 02:24 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2002, 09:43 AM   #70
mike lee
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 646
Offline
ditch denial

Excerpts from a recent New York Times report titled: "MEN WHO STEP UP TO THE SCALE AND CROW"

David Zinczenko, the editor of "Men's Health" magazine, believes that one factor contributing to a new climate of publicized male weight loss is the fact that more American men than ever are overweight or obese -- 61 percent, according to the surgeon general. That bad news is partly behind the harsh new guidelines issued last week by the Institute of Medicine, a government agency, recommending that adults exercise at least an hour a day to maintain health and weight....

Doctors and weight-loss experts say that because men are much less likely than women to perceive themselves as overweight, they frequently are obese before they realize they have a problem. (Obesity is defined by a formula comparing height to weight. A 5-foot-11-inch man weighing 225 pounds would qualify.) ...

Art Cooper, the formerly high-living editor in chief of GQ, who has dropped 55 pounds since January, chronicled the saga in his monthly editor's column ("I'm always sober and always hungry," he wrote in March.)...

"Thinness today says that you are richer, smarter and more successful than the overweight masses. With our lives and food chain set up to make us fat -- I mean, you can't drive down any highway in America and find a grapefruit -- a guy needs to be smarter and more determined to get lean. So telling people you lost weight is telling them, 'Hey, I can outwit the world; I can beat the system."'...

Among that smarter, leaner crowd are about 75 members of the New York City Fire Department who two years ago began working with Dr. Howard Shapiro, a Manhattan weight-loss specialist (and diet-book author). "At the beginning, the other guys would be teasing us, talking about soy burgers and soy milk, so there was a certain amount of harassment," said Michael Carter, former vice president of the firefighters' union, who lost 80 pounds on the program. "But when we started losing weight, they were like, 'Hey, what are you eating over there?"'
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2002, 08:17 AM   #71
justinm
Location: Maidenhead
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 167
United Kingdom
Offline
And don't forget, some of us skinny guys would love to be a little bigger! Being thin seems to me to be a dissadvantage in aikido - at least until I achieve a high level of skill in the long distant future!!

(Oops, did I say 'skinny'? I meant 'tall for my weight')

Justin

Justin McCarthy
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2002, 01:49 PM   #72
deepsoup
Dojo: Sheffield Shodokan Dojo
Location: Sheffield, UK
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 524
Offline
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
Biomechanics and physiology are quite complicated, and one should always beware of applying simple physics to an issue of sporting performance if one is not well versed in the relevant theory and research.
No argument from me on this one.
Quote:
First of all, making a correlation between muscle mass and power is virtually meaningless in any practical context. Either this has been misapplied from the book, or the authors of the book themselves have misapplied it...
I dont think the figure is misapplied in the book, it refers to the increase in power resulting from an increase in muscle mass alone. The chapter in question is discussing the marginal effects on performance of various factors, with an aim to targetting training where it will most benefit performance.

I realise that most people are unlikely to increase their muscle mass through training without also improving the other factors important to power (primarily recruitment and inter-muscle coordination) but we're not talking about one person changing their physique, we're talking about the relative advantages/disadvantages associated with physical bulk.

PAW's example of the powerlifters was a good example of what I'm talking about in my view. All three men are world class athletes, and its reasonable to assume that they all have excellent recruitment, coordination and endurance. The main difference between them is their bodyweight, and proportional to their bodyweight the lighter men are stronger than the heavier ones. (And of course none of the men is anything like as strong as an ant or a spider.)
Quote:
...as I can't see how this is relevant to rock climbing. Unless one is racing up a cliff, rock climbing is not about power anyway.
Then I guess you dont know much about rock-climbing. Power is important, speed is important and not all moves are static. (Especially when you climb at the kind of level that Goddard and Neumann do - way out of my league I'm afraid.)

Quote:
Speaking practically, power is not only about moving a weight or against resistance a certain distance, but is also determined by the speed in which the distance is covered. When it comes to measuring power, speed is just as important as force.
Weren't you telling me off for applying schoolboy physics to a complex situation a little while ago?
Quote:
The ability of a muscle to produce power is more a function of neurological adaptation than amount of muscle material, especially at higher speeds, although muscle size can be a limiting factor. Even when the element of speed is removed, and one is only measuring how much resistance can be moved how far (strength), neural adaptations are key, both in terms of how the motor units are recruited and the rate at which they are fired.
So neurological adaptation a more significant factor than muscle mass in determining power? Care to quote a reference or two?

Incidentally, sorry to nit-pick, but if you just look at how much resistance can be moved how far thats work, not strength. (And power is the rate at which work is done) My understanding of the word 'strength' is that it describes only the amount of force that can be applied, not how much work can be done with it, or how fast.
Quote:
Now you might think that if you kept all things equal, then you could compare power output at X muscle weight to power output at 2X muscle weight, but not so. How you went about achieving the increase in muscle weight is the whole story.
I agree again, but remember we're not necessarily talking about a single person here, we're comparing different people of different weights. Like the power-lifters again, different masses but comparable performance in other areas.

I dont know, but I suspect that 60% figure came from a comparison of the performance of a number of athletes of differing weights by some statistical method.

Quote:
Anyway, this is getting long. The main point is, that 60% figure isn't 'common knowledge', and it really doesn't even make sense.
Then please feel free to shoot that figure down in flames. I mean no offence, but I'm giving more credence in what I've read in a very well researched and thourough textbook than I'm putting in your opinion (at least until you quote references, and assuming I can be bothered to check them).
Quote:
In general, fears about muscle mass slowing one down or lessening one's mobility are largely ephemeral. If the muscle is achieved through smart, scientifically-based training appropriate to one's functional objectives, it can only help. Even if the muscle is acheived by ignorant training methods and dumb luck, it will still probably help.
I dont disagree here really, although if one of ones functional objectives is to move quickly (and in aikido that means acceleration, not straight-line speed), then one ought to think carefully before deliberately gaining weight. (Especially if, as you say, neural adaptation is key. Would it not be possible to improve neural adaptation whilst keeping the increase in mass to a minimum?)

I'm not sure that muscle mass 'can only help', however. Ultimately we're talking about aikido here, and in terms of aikido, time spent gaining muscle rather than learning technique is time wasted.

(Something else rock-climbing has in common with aikido is that beginners often think they aren't strong enough to do a move, when in fact they already have ample strength but are lacking in technique.)

Sean
x

Last edited by deepsoup : 09-09-2002 at 01:59 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2002, 04:49 PM   #73
paw
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 768
Offline
let's spin this off onto another thread....

Sean,

First thing: I couldn't find the book in the local library, but I am working on tracking it down.

Second thing:
Quote:
PAW's example of the powerlifters was a good example of what I'm talking about in my view. All three men are world class athletes, and its reasonable to assume that they all have excellent recruitment, coordination and endurance. The main difference between them is their bodyweight, and proportional to their bodyweight the lighter men are stronger than the heavier ones.
Apples and oranges. The larger men do generate more power, which you conceeded earlier. The smaller men lift more as a percentage of their body weight, which I conceeded earlier. Two separate measurements of "strength".... There are others, like say, static strength (the ability to remain in a position despite forces being applied against the structure) to pick one.

Rant:

In my mind, all of this is tangental to aikido, as I suspect that neither rock climbing nor powerlifting are ideal training methods to improve aikido performance, but both probably have elements that would greatly benefit aikidoka.

Since I've gotten on a soap box... The posts about physical fitness seem incomplete in my mind. Physically fit, FOR WHAT? Lance Armstrong is a tremendous cyclist and as such there is no doubt that he is physically fit. However, I would bet my rent money that a good high-school swimmer would trounce him in a swimming event, certainly a collegiate swimmer would. In a similar vein, I know folks that can train aikido for hours, and yet be huffing and puffing a minute or two into a basketball game. Different activities have different physical demands.

To my knowledge, no one has studied and produced a definative guideline for fitness as it applies to aikido. Maybe someone would like to fill that gap? To me, that would be a much more interesting discussion, and a far beneficial one. I mean, who's going to say their instructor isn't in shape? Everyone's instructor is either in shape, or there's a very good reason why they aren't or don't have to be.



Ok, I'm off my soap box, and I'm done with this thread unless someone has a specific question for me.

Again, thanks to the group for allowing the brief tangent (and sorry about the rant).

Back to the original topic!

Regards,

Paul
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2002, 06:43 PM   #74
Kevin Wilbanks
Location: Seattle/Southern Wisconsin
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 788
Offline
soup,

As far as the strength/power/work thing goes, the way these words are used in strength training circles is not the same as strict physics definitions. Likewise, my post above was not addressed to biomechanists, but a general reader. If you were a biomechanist, you would not need the post.

Since you seemed to ignore the most important explanatory parts of my post, I'm not sure how to rebut. There simply is no such thing as a muscle size to power correlation without specifying the training means by which the size was acheived. In general, there are three main types of exercise objectives: strength, hypertrophy (size), and muscular endurance. What is commonly referred to as power training is a subset of strength, in which moves are trained explosively - the quintessential example being Olympic Weightlifting. Which of the three adaptations results is a matter of training intensity and method. Neural adaptations are far more important to strength and power training and the resulting strength (or power) gained is consequently more specific to the actual movements trained. It is possible to significantly increase an athlete's strength and power with marginal hypertrophic adaptation. Hypertrophy adaptations are more emphasized by training in which high volumes of moderately heavy loads are lifted. These categories are arbitrarily chosen segments of a continuum related primarily to exercise intensity - usually expressed in terms of a 1 rep maximum.

I could go on, but there is not room for an entire basic education on exercise science here. As for references, I suggest picking up a basic exercise science reference or text book. The one I studied for my certification is the ESSENTIALS OF STRENGTH TRAINING AND CONDITIONING, by the National Strength and Conditioning Association, ed. Thomas Baechle and Roger Earle. There are hundreds and hundreds of references in the back, if you feel like looking them up. A more advanced general reference is SUPERTRAINING by Mel Siff, looking up all the references for which might take most of the rest of your life. Have fun.

As far as training for Aikido, rock climbing or anything, the important thing is to identify the types of movements and energy systems involved and design training appropriate to those objectives. Except in the case of excess body fat that proves a hindrance, gaining or losing weight is a peripheral concern. Changes in weight that adversely effect performance would have to be determined in each individual situation. It is possible for an athlete to gain muscle weight disproportional to gain in strength performance, and this is considered to be a training error - probably the result of inappropriate emphasis on hypertrophy training during a cycle, where appropriate limit strength or power work to take advantage of the increased size afterwards was not done.

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.

At the very least, a certain level of general physical preparation is in order. In order to get the most out of practicing a skill, one needs to be safely and comfortably within one's limits in terms of strength, power, flexibility, endurance, etc... Otherwise, training has to be slowed down due to fatigue, modified to accomodate weakness, or halted due to injury. Fitness inadequacies cause wasted time on the mat - as I'm sure you've experienced when you waited for someone to catch their breath when you could have been throwing and taking ukemi, pantomimed a throw on one side due to someone's weakness or injury, etc... As the adage goes: "Get in shape to play, don't play to get in shape."

Last edited by Kevin Wilbanks : 09-09-2002 at 06:52 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2002, 07:50 PM   #75
Kevin Wilbanks
Location: Seattle/Southern Wisconsin
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 788
Offline
I tried to cram too much into that post. 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. 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.

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.

Last edited by Kevin Wilbanks : 09-09-2002 at 07:54 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:16 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2024 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate