hardest warmup excersise

what is the hardest warmup excersise u guys do?

Go no sen kuzushi

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

Push ups on the backs of the hands.

All the best

Jason T

Jogging.

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 hardest warm up I ever did was none at all.

Nearly killed me.

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.

Jason Tonks wrote: 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.

Matt Gallagher wrote: 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.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: 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.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: 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.

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.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: 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.

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!

Dave Miller wrote: 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.

Dave Miller wrote: 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.

Dave Miller wrote: 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.

Dave Miller wrote: 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.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: 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.

Jane Tao (ikkainogakusei) wrote: 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?

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

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.

I dont care about most difficult or easiest.

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.

Peter Rehse wrote: 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!

Justin McCarthy (justinm) wrote: 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

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

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