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 > Training

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 02-09-2003, 05:54 PM   #51
PeterR
 
PeterR's Avatar
Dojo: Shodokan Honbu (Osaka)
Location: Himeji, Japan
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,054
Japan
Offline
I don't recall the quote but then again I got half way through John Steven's Doka book before I fell asleep.

My original contention in this thread is that you don't have to lift weights to get the ideal Aikido body - just do lots and lots of Aikido. I bow to the more knowledgable who suggest supplemental weight lifting would be beneficial.

And I am sorry I have real problems with the statement even the most out of shape people can be really great aikidoka. I know several people through age and infirmity that can not perform as they used to and in my mind they are not lessened because of it. However, they did perform and became Great Aikidoka because they went through that period. I even allow for a wide variety of fitness and body types getting substantial benefit from Aikido and developing skill levels but most out of shape becomeing Great Aikidoka no way.

I don't equate strength with fitness but the ability to move.
Quote:
Andrew Wilson wrote:
Peter,

Didn't morihei once say that he didn't truly understand/appreciate aikido till he lost his strength? I can't remember but I heard about something to that degree in my readings.

In my very limited experiance, I have found that even the most out of shape people can be really great aikidoka. The only thing my personal physical abilities have really helped is with the knowledge that I could run away from them if we ever got into a fight

I am not saying there are no advantages to lifting and being in shape. but to quote a sempai. "hmm... your in shape. thats nice. not needed, but nice"

Peter Rehse Shodokan Aikido
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2003, 06:30 PM   #52
otto
Dojo: Independent
Location: Maracaibo/Zulia
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 149
Venezuela
Offline
Ai symbol

If I remember right , it was O'Sensei who said:

"If you can walk , you can make Aikido".

So fortunately Aikido could be done almost by anyone , be it Mr.America or the average "6 cokes a day guy" (me ) , but isnt true also that if you look after your body he will take care of you?

As i see it , keeping a healthy body will (luckily) means having a longer life ...wich also means more Aikido .

seeyaall....

Plus KI!

"Perfection is a Process"
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2003, 07:12 PM   #53
ikkainogakusei
Location: All over CA
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 137
Offline
(2 cents)

Weight training is fine for isolation of specific muscles. Running is good for cardiovascular conditioning.

Specificity of training might require a closer look. I have found weapons work has benefitted both my grip and my upper body. Certain yoga positions has helped the stability of my base of support. Swimming has benefitted me both cardiovascularly and helped condition me for turning-on-center movements. The twisting motion in water with the resistance increasing as I try to swim faster is a good CV workout as well. Playing an aiki version of tag (chasing by doing forward rolls, backward rolls, etc.) with children is a fantastic vestibular conditioning tool. It keeps you from getting too much vertigo info from inner ear, and helps ukemi.

As for those who believe that only aikido will help aikido, you may want to consider that the number of micro-tears (musculo-tendonal or other) which occur with training can be reduced if the body is given a rest, yet one can rest and still train if there is variety in training.

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2003, 07:27 PM   #54
PeterR
 
PeterR's Avatar
Dojo: Shodokan Honbu (Osaka)
Location: Himeji, Japan
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,054
Japan
Offline
Quote:
Jane Tao (ikkainogakusei) wrote:
As for those who believe that only aikido will help aikido, you may want to consider that the number of micro-tears (musculo-tendonal or other) which occur with training can be reduced if the body is given a rest, yet one can rest and still train if there is variety in training.
A very good point.

I don't think anybody said only Aikido will help Aikido but more along the lines of the best thing for Aikido is Aikido.

That said, I just spent two very hard training days and at my age there is no way I could keep up that intensity without rest. Nothing stopping me from improving on some other aspect using either an Aikido related exercise (bokken work) or something else. A bit of variety also keeps things interesting.

Peter Rehse Shodokan Aikido
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2003, 06:32 PM   #55
ikkainogakusei
Location: All over CA
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 137
Offline
Smile aikido and specificity of training

Quote:
Peter Rehse (PeterR) wrote:
A very good point.

I don't think anybody said only Aikido will help Aikido but more along the lines of the best thing for Aikido is Aikido.
Hi Peter
Quote:
paul watt (paw) wrote:
The best way to get better at aikido is to train aikido. Period.
I guess this is where I assumed that the '..only aikido will help aikido..'assertion was made. I can't quote chapter and verse for studies that have shown improvement of performance but I can leave references.

McArdle, Katch, and Katch (Energy, nutrition and human performance, 1996)address Specificity of training as well as Brooks, and Fahey (Exercise Physiology: Human Bioenergetics and its Applications 1996), and Powers & Howley (Exercise Physiology: Theory and Application of fittness and Performance 1998). There may be more updated versions of these books but these are the ones I have access to. They all discuss the benefits of training in areas that may have similarity of application to movement or strength. Certainly, a movement that is thoroughly dissimilar to aikido would do no good for application of skill, but some things may actually improve the application of a particular technique.

If for example, you understand a movement in theory, but have a noodle for an arm, and just need a little more grip strength to get a better 'grasp' of the technique (that is; grip strength is your rate limiter), then working on that grip strength might help, be that through simple grip exercises, or by doing tanren uchi (sp?).

Maybe one might find it challenging to turn on center, and the twisting motion of the crawl stroke (swimming) might reveal conceptual poor form by doing a lateral bend rather than a transverse twist. Again, somatic awareness is your rate limiter.

Anecdotaly, I have known others who have benefitted from 'cross-training' and aikido, and sometimes that breakthrough has come from an indirect source of training.

Food for thought.

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2003, 08:34 PM   #56
Kevin Wilbanks
Location: Seattle/Southern Wisconsin
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 788
Offline
Quote:
Jane Tao (ikkainogakusei) wrote:
Weight training is fine for isolation of specific muscles. Running is good for cardiovascular conditioning.
It seems that countering this kind of cartoonish thinking is my job here. The isolation of specific muscles in weight training is actually impossible. The body knows of movements, not muscles. Even so-called 'isolation' movements on special machines are really nothing of the kind, just really impractical movements lacking components of balance and control.

You have some good ideas about specificity in training, but keep in mind that there are both general and specific components to training. Weights and bodyweight exercises can be used to further one's general physical preparedness, and most definitely NOT just in terms of "isolating specific muscles". The best weight moves (compound freeweight and bodyweight exercises) develop muscle strength and size, bone strength, joint strength, active ROM, balance, neuromuscular coordination in multi-jointed movements for starters, and can help foster strong, injury-preventive movement patterns such as proper squatting and standing hip flexion. Special weight moves like the Olympic lifts and variations can also develop general motor qualities such as maximal power and rate of force development.

As far as cardiovascular goes, running is OK, but interval training is much more efficient and applicable to Aikido. Search for some of my posts under HIIT for more info.

In my view, supplemental/additional physical training for Aikido probably should not take the form of dissecting a particular move for weaknesses and coming up with a specific conditioning supplement, as you postulate. Instead, one should use sound general conditioning methods in order to make sure that one has more than ample 'raw materials' to work with, then one can let the specific demands of Aikido continue to shape and adapt the body. Nothing is more specific than the activity itself, and in the case of Aikido, the movements are so unique and various, that I don't see a large role for supplemental specific work.

Last edited by Kevin Wilbanks : 03-03-2003 at 08:36 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2003, 01:06 AM   #57
ikkainogakusei
Location: All over CA
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 137
Offline
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
It seems that countering this kind of cartoonish thinking is my job here.
Well hello Kevin, I see you've decided to take the low road and cast aspersion rather than ask for origin of assertion.

Bummer.

In Neurophysiological Basis of Movement ( Latash 1998) the author discusses a technique used to isolate a motor unit (for those of you who unclear on the term MU means 'The motorneuron and the muscle fibers it innervates...' -Latash 98) called needle electromyography whereby "...a thin needle (with a diameter of less than 1 mm) is inserted into a muscle (figure 6.6). Inside the needle is a very thin wire that is electrically isolated from the needle. The tip of the wire is not isolated." "Such electrodes are designed to record the patterns of activity of individual motor units." (Latash 98).

Interestingly enough, though I have already addressed this research in Motor Development and Motor Learning, we were just discussing (in Neuromotor Control) last week the study whereby using this technique combined with biofeedback a person can actually isolate a single motor unit and contract only those fibers without contracting the full muscle. Not only can we choose consciously to contract one muscle, but we can individuate a set of fibers within that muscle.
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
The isolation of specific muscles in weight training is actually impossible.
I would agree, had I known that a simplification which I used to discuss training, for the sake of avoiding ad nauseam forensic discussion, would be flagged and labeled 'cartoonish' I'd have been more careful. I think for the sake of others though, discussing enough curricula to enable one to attain a BS in Kinesiology should be unnecessary.
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
The body knows of movements, not muscles.
Hmmm, I don't agree. How do you come by this assertion?

True, the body develops coordinative structures, but it is possible for the body to respond to an action potential meant for a specific motor unit, and depending upon recruitment need, possibly more than one.
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
Even so-called 'isolation' movements on special machines are really nothing of the kind, just really impractical movements lacking components of balance and control.
These components, would it be too much to ask if we are talking about vestibular, visual, or kinesthetic components of balance? (<<my emphasis of study) When you speak of control, are you speaking of neuro-motor control? Is that too specific, should we simplify? Would that be cartoonish?
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
You have some good ideas about specificity in training,
Oh, hey thanks.
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
but keep in mind that there are both general and specific components to training. Weights and bodyweight exercises can be used to further one's general physical preparedness, and most definitely NOT just in terms of "isolating specific muscles".
Yes there are agonists, antagonists an synergists, but do you think everyone wants to hear the long of it?

You're right. For those of you still reading this discourse: when you use the 'Lat' Pull-down Machine' you are using more than your latissimus dorsi, in fact you would not be able to grip the machine if you could only use your lats.

I would assert that by using weights in a fashion that targets a particular muscle to be used as the Prime Mover, one is reducing the number of Degrees of Freedom, and reducing the need for complex Coordinative Structures used in a more complex movement, so that one can concentrate on a possibly more weak area, though it should be noted that weights are not purely isolationary in their function.

Is that verbosity necessary?
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
The best weight moves (compound freeweight and bodyweight exercises) develop muscle strength and size, bone strength, joint strength, active ROM, balance, neuromuscular coordination in multi-jointed movements for starters, and can help foster strong, injury-preventive movement patterns such as proper squatting and standing hip flexion.
Okay, if we're going to to go down Forensic Lane, you may want to rethink some of your uses of the term 'strength', some might argue that you've malapropped.
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
Special weight moves like the Olympic lifts and variations can also develop general motor qualities such as maximal power and rate of force development.
Oh, I get it, this is a sermon.
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
Search for some of my posts under HIIT for more info.
No wait, it's a sales pitch.

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2003, 04:50 AM   #58
paw
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 768
Offline
Jane,
Quote:
I guess this is where I assumed that the '..only aikido will help aikido..'assertion was made. I can't quote chapter and verse for studies that have shown improvement of performance but I can leave references.
No question that secondary activites can be used to improve performance in primary activities. Be that as it may, to improve preformance for an activity, the majority of training time should be spent on the specific activity. Football players are best served by playing football, by engaging in running drills that improve football performance, by using strength training protocals that mimic and benefit football performance, by choosing a nutritional program that supports football, etc....

So, yes, a football player will run, will strength train, etc. to improve their performance. But the majority of a successful football player's time is spent in football specific drills and secondary activities are geared to improved football performance. Which, as I understand it, is what you're asserting. (Please correct me if I've misinterpreted your position).

Regards,

Paul
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2003, 08:26 AM   #59
Kevin Wilbanks
Location: Seattle/Southern Wisconsin
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 788
Offline
<In Neurophysiological Basis of Movement ( Latash 1998) the author discusses a technique used to isolate a motor unit (for those of you who unclear on the term MU means 'The motorneuron and the muscle fibers it innervates...' -Latash 98) called needle electromyography whereby "...a thin needle (with a diameter of less than 1 mm) is inserted into a muscle (figure 6.6). Inside the needle is a very thin wire that is electrically isolated from the needle. The tip of the wire is not isolated." "Such electrodes are designed to record the patterns of activity of individual motor units." (Latash 98).

Interestingly enough, though I have already addressed this research in Motor Development and Motor Learning, we were just discussing (in Neuromotor Control) last week the study whereby using this technique combined with biofeedback a person can actually isolate a single motor unit and contract only those fibers without contracting the full muscle. Not only can we choose consciously to contract one muscle, but we can individuate a set of fibers within that muscle.>

And this has what to do with training?

<I would agree, had I known that a simplification which I used to discuss training, for the sake of avoiding ad nauseam forensic discussion, would be flagged and labeled 'cartoonish' I'd have been more careful. I think for the sake of others though, discussing enough curricula to enable one to attain a BS in Kinesiology should be unnecessary.>

I deliberately strive to avoid unnecessary complication in explanation, and talk about training in practical terms. What was 'cartoonish' was your reduction of the whole field of supplemental and preparatory conditioning with weights to 'isolating specific muscles', not the lack of technical jargon.

<Hmmm, I don't agree. How do you come by this assertion?

True, the body develops coordinative structures, but it is possible for the body to respond to an action potential meant for a specific motor unit, and depending upon recruitment need, possibly more than one.>

Once again, acadamic irrelevancies. When one is training with weights, training in Aikido, or doing anything outside of a biofeedback lab, in terms of intent and action, one can only do movements, and every movement is a coordinated effort of many muscles and motor units, some isometric, some kinetic. To break it down in terms of individual muscles is an impractical and possibly misleading oversimplification of a complex process. Luckily, one need not go down that road - one can learn movements and train movements quite productively without ever referring to individual muscles.

<These components, would it be too much to ask if we are talking about vestibular, visual, or kinesthetic components of balance? (<<my emphasis of study) When you speak of control, are you speaking of neuro-motor control? Is that too specific, should we simplify? Would that be cartoonish?>

Once again, academic overload. If one is performing an elbow extension movement in a chair, with one's upper arm in a fixed position, pushing against a lever arm that can only move in one plane of motion, one cannot balance the weight nor exert any control over it, other than to merely push within the fixed track set by the machine. If one does a leg press in a machine, once again, there is nothing to the movement except pushing along a linear track. However, if one does a back squat with free weights, in addition to pressing through roughly the same range of hip, knee, and ankle motion, one must also balance the body plus the weight in two other planes of motion - which components of balance aren't important, in one exercise one is challenging one's ability to balance and stabilize, in the other, one is not.

<Yes there are agonists, antagonists an synergists, but do you think everyone wants to hear the long of it?

You're right. For those of you still reading this discourse: when you use the 'Lat' Pull-down Machine' you are using more than your latissimus dorsi, in fact you would not be able to grip the machine if you could only use your lats.

I would assert that by using weights in a fashion that targets a particular muscle to be used as the Prime Mover, one is reducing the number of Degrees of Freedom, and reducing the need for complex Coordinative Structures used in a more complex movement, so that one can concentrate on a possibly more weak area, though it should be noted that weights are not purely isolationary in their function.

Is that verbosity necessary?>

No, especially since what you are saying is incorrect. Your 'Prime Mover' analysis is a classic case of putting the analytic cart before the horse. 'Prime Movers' only exist in the minds of analysts - it only has utility as a description, yet you are working backwards from the observation that one muscle does more of the work than the others in a move and making poor assumptions about how the movement works. In complex multi-joint movements such as a pulldown, one is only 'reducing degrees of freedom' insofar as doing any specific movement requires one to do something specific, thereby reducing movement possibilities - this has nothing to do with a taxonomical scheme of primaries vs. secondaries or isolating muscles. Virtually every muscle from the waist up is involved in the pulldown - which one stabilizes where, or generates motion where isn't of much practical import. Do the free-hanging version: the pull-up, and even more muscles come into play. Pulling something heavy down, or one's body up is not even close to 'isolationary' in any way - but it is a useful movement chain to become strong at.

<Oh, I get it, this is a sermon.

No wait, it's a sales pitch.>

Talk about the low road. I wrote what I wrote because you threw out a couple of flippant sentences that seemed to presume some very simplistic, dismissive things about training methodologies. My reply was to counter these, because too many people in Aikido seem to ignore or dismiss the usefulness of training methods that are universally used and valued in virtually every other athletic endeavor from the high school level up. It had nothing to do with your ego or academia, which seems to be what most of what you've written here is about.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2003, 08:44 AM   #60
Kevin Wilbanks
Location: Seattle/Southern Wisconsin
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 788
Offline
Quote:
paul watt (paw) wrote:
No question that secondary activites can be used to improve performance in primary activities. Be that as it may, to improve preformance for an activity, the majority of training time should be spent on the specific activity. Football players are best served by playing football, by engaging in running drills that improve football performance, by using strength training protocals that mimic and benefit football performance, by choosing a nutritional program that supports football, etc....

So, yes, a football player will run, will strength train, etc. to improve their performance. But the majority of a successful football player's time is spent in football specific drills and secondary activities are geared to improved football performance. Which, as I understand it, is what you're asserting. (Please correct me if I've misinterpreted your position).

Regards,

Paul
I think you may be overemphasizing the specificity aspect of some elements of football training. Most weight protocols aren't that specific to football movements, and the purpose of them is often to develop general attributes. Olympic lifts, for instance, are incorporated to develop general motor qualities such as explosiveness. Squats and many other weight exercises are often used just to develop general muscle size and strength. Often whole cycles of off-season training are dedicated to hypertrophy.

I also wonder about your correlation between the relative amount of time spent on an activity and its importance. It is true that a football player spends a relatively small fraction of their training time lifting weights, and the majority of their time doing more football-specific activities. However, a lot of this seems to be about physiology.

One can only productively train a specific weight movement for a few sets one to three times per week, whereas there is less physiological limit on how much skill practice one can do. For instance, let's say a lineman can squat 600 pounds and bench press 350 as they train now. If his body were different and he could receive unlimited returns on putting more time in, don't you think he would? What if he could devote 10x as much of his training time to weights and get proportionally stronger - say strong enough to squat 6,000 pounds and bench 3,500?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2003, 08:50 AM   #61
Kevin Wilbanks
Location: Seattle/Southern Wisconsin
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 788
Offline
I think another physiological reason a pro football player spends a small amount of time on weights is that such training brings diminishing returns when one nears one's potential. By the time they reach the NFL, they are probably all within 5 or 10% of their maximum potential in terms of raw strength, speed, etc... However, if you took some 160 pound guy off the street and decided to prepare him for the NFL, and he had the potential to become stronger by, say 200%, what would be the training focus?

It's useful to take a look at Soviet Russian training methods during the periods when they were about 20 years ahead of the US, and dominating the world in international athletics, despite having a very narrow genetic stock to choose from. On average, they conditioned their athletes for 3 full years on general training protocols (weights, gymnastic moves, running, etc...) before introducing any specific skill training in their sport, or even any elements of training specificity.

Last edited by Kevin Wilbanks : 03-04-2003 at 08:57 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2003, 08:53 AM   #62
ikkainogakusei
Location: All over CA
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 137
Offline
Quote:
paul watt (paw) wrote:
Jane,



No question that secondary activites can be used to improve performance in primary activities. Be that as it may, to improve preformance for an activity, the majority of training time should be spent on the specific activity. <snip> But the majority of a successful football player's time is spent in football specific drills and secondary activities are geared to improved football performance. Which, as I understand it, is what you're asserting. (Please correct me if I've misinterpreted your position).

Regards,

Paul
Oh yes I agree, I didn't mean to impart that one could train for an activity by mostly training in another activity. My (general) suggestions were meant as a supplement rather than a metaphoric meal. I guess I was addressing the possibility of an aspect of a person's activity being a rate-limiter, and addressing the limiter in order to enhance the training.

Yes, football drills are a significant part of a player's training, but they do also weight train, which isn't exactly a football drill, but helps on a secondary or even tertiary level.

The assistant swim coach here was very resistant to using weight training as a suppliment, and believed that it would not help his performance. Now that he was no longer competing, he had decided to try weight training simply as an activity. After several months he decided to get into the pool with the team and swim. His time was better than it ever had been.

Now, it might be possible that there was another factor in his improvement, and I asked him if there was anything else that he had done different; was he eating different, did he over train before, anything? Nope.

Yes, training in aikido is good for improving skill, but other activities can help in that improvement.



(Kevin, Please note that the above anecdotal account is not meant to be sweeping empirical fact, but as example.)
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2003, 10:09 AM   #63
paw
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 768
Offline
Kevin,
Quote:
I think you may be overemphasizing the specificity aspect of some elements of football training. Most weight protocols aren't that specific to football movements, and the purpose of them is often to develop general attributes.
What I meant was that a football player should weight train with an eye towards football. While a football player may incorporate squats, I don't believe that they would adopt a powerlifting protocal, since football players aren't judged on a one rep max in the squat. Neither would a football player incorporate a multi-workout bodybuilding split for weight training either, since football games aren't determined by a group pose-down.

Anecdotally, The Renegades have had great success with improving their client's performance. They are known, collectively, to have very demanding work protocals (averaging 1 1/2 - 2 hours per day, everyday).

When you get a chance, post what your impressions are of their training protocals.

Regards,

Paul
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2003, 11:26 AM   #64
Kevin Wilbanks
Location: Seattle/Southern Wisconsin
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 788
Offline
Paul,

I know bench press wasn't the best example, but my point was that although increasing one's bench from 300 to 350 might be of little use for football, increasing it to 3,500 presumably would - how could it not? If he could become as strong as ten men by training ten times as much, I don't think all the wise, specific training in the world would make much of a difference against him.

The overall point I was getting at is that what type of training one does, including how specific, depends upon where one is in an overall program and where one is in relation to one's potential.

If one is severely out of shape, six-months to a year of bodybuilding and powerlifting routines and lots of food might be a wise preamble to any specific training, just to build up one's 'raw materials' in order to be able to adapt to and benefit from more specific work. Incidentally, I think most out-of-shape Aikidoka who ask open-ended questions about fitness probably fall into this category, hence I recommend a general resistance routine often.

Also, since Aikido is non-competitive and not geared toward full-blast, all-out application, it seems to me that maximizing athletic attributes such as power or strength in ways specific to throwing or taking ukemi wouldn't be all that useful. It seems like the main benefit of conditioning for Aikido is just to become generally prepared and capable of doing lots of Aikido injury-free.

****

I have read some of Coach Davies' articles before, and have met Charlie Newkerk down here in Florida.

Charlie was aware of a lot of exercises and principles, but I sensed a lack of 'big picture' in his thinking - it seemed sort of a hodgepodge. The virtue of a good coach is the ability to put together all the info into a long-term, periodized plan of action that organizes the various elements of training toward optimal performance at the appropriate time (season and/or competition). I certainly have only inklings of this, and will probably not go into training highly competitive athletes anyway.

As far as Davies goes, I spotted some serious problems in the article I studied: doing intense anaerobic endurance work before power exercises, photos of exercises done with what I consider dangerously improper form. Then again, it was in T-Mag, so it may have been dumbed down.

It seemed the general gist of his philosophy is a wide variety of exercises and an emphasis on developing a vast overall work capacity. There is definitely some virtue to developing a large work capacity. Reminds me of an interesting soviet vs. american anecdote I read once: some soviet wrestlers came over for a training exchange. So the US team was going to try their workout. Their usual warmup was a half-hour game of full-court basketball. By the end of the warm-up, the americans were nearly worn out, and couldn't really get started on the actual training session, while the russians were merely warmed up and ready to go.

I'll look through the site and see what they've got there. If you want my reading recommendation, I think the king of all training resources is Supertraining, both the book and the discussion group, run by Mel Siff. I have yet to see anything that comes close in terms of breadth, depth, and critical vigor: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

Last edited by Kevin Wilbanks : 03-04-2003 at 11:29 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2003, 11:35 PM   #65
Kevin Wilbanks
Location: Seattle/Southern Wisconsin
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 788
Offline
Paul,

I looked through some of the articles there, written by Davies. Unfortunately, for me, the most salient aspect of these writings is the hype-ridden, melodramatic writing style. The ratio of actual ideas presented to bragging, self-promotion, and poetic flourish is a little low for my tastes. But, hey, it's marketing, and the guy is trying to make money.

The articles I looked through definitely had some good exercises, and the general idea of doing varied power exercises with an eye toward specificity for athletic enhancement is good.

I saw some problematic myths being thrown around in places - for example, the idea that certain exercises are inherently 'functional'. Functionality really has no meaning outside of a specific context, and the judgement should be about the functional carryover from the entire training program to the activity, not just specific exercises. Well-designed training protocols can incorporate exercises such as bodybuilding moves, machines, or other activities seemingly unrelated to the movements of the activity - often they are part of a hypertrophy phase, for stages of injury rehab, used during a recuperative phase, or used to address a specific weaknesses.

Another example of a problem I have with this kind of information source: in one article he touts the virtues of 'towel chin ups' as being an essential exercise and decries those who don't know about them. He cites the fact that your forearms and biceps will get extremely pumped and sore when you try them as proof of their superiority in eliminating grip weakness. Since it is an unusual grip angle and object, such a reaction to trying the exercise is exactly what one would expect, and actually proves nothing about the effectiveness or usefulness of the exercise for any particular purpose. I would be willing to put regular bar chins plus work on spring-loaded grippers up against the towel chin. I see no reason why it couldn't achieve equal or superior results - however, both of these exercises are standard and confer no mystique to me or foster the impression that I am letting you in on a little-known secret.

In general, I spend little time getting information from these kind of sources, because there is so much extraneous junk in the way of the actual information. Try Supertraining. Dr. Siff also holds inexpensive weekend camps in Denver which you might want to look into. I think you have enough training background, experience, and knowledge of your needs to move beyond any of these prepackaged products or systems, and develop your own custom periodized programs. I consider myself still in the 'building up the raw materials' stage.

Last edited by Kevin Wilbanks : 03-04-2003 at 11:40 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2003, 10:06 AM   #66
ikkainogakusei
Location: All over CA
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 137
Offline
Hello Kevin,
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:

And this has what to do with training?
It is an answer to "The body knows of movements, not muscles." "The isolation of specific muscles in weight training is actually impossible." as well as the 'cartoonish' aspersion. Remember I had said "Not only can we choose consciously to contract one muscle, but we can individuate a set of fibers within that muscle."

**********

assertion(body knows of movements, not muscles)= wrong. Where did you get this information?

**********
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
I deliberately strive to avoid unnecessary complication in explanation, and talk about training in practical terms. What was 'cartoonish' was your reduction of the whole field of supplemental and preparatory conditioning with weights to 'isolating specific muscles', not the lack of technical jargon.
You're right I did reduce this because this was not the main subject of my post. You however, took a full post and reduced it down to a cursary statement (which I'll admit I did say something that could have been worded better) and ran with it. If you deliberately aviod unnecessary complication in explanation, why do you pick a single line and label someone's statement without asking how they came about this decision, or if they'd like to clarify? What's behind this tactic?

Restatement:

Isolating specific muscles=> reducing the degrees of freedom to increase work on a smaller number of muscles.

If I wanted to discuss a completely different area of training, but still recognise the legitamacy of weight training, wouldn't it seem easier to say the first?
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
Once again, academic overload. If one is performing an elbow extension movement in a chair, with one's upper arm in a fixed position, pushing against a lever arm that can only move in one plane of motion, one cannot balance the weight nor exert any control over it, other than to merely push within the fixed track set by the machine. If one does a leg press in a machine, once again, there is nothing to the movement except pushing along a linear track. However, if one does a back squat with free weights, in addition to pressing through roughly the same range of hip, knee, and ankle motion, one must also balance the body plus the weight in two other planes of motion - which components of balance aren't important, in one exercise one is challenging one's ability to balance and stabilize, in the other, one is not.
Okay, you're preaching again. I did not discuss the differences between machines and free weights. If you wish to discuss balance, I'll be happy to clarify the oversimplification you just made, but we can do that through email.
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
No, especially since what you are saying is incorrect. <snip> 'Prime Movers' only exist in the minds of analysts - it only has utility as a description...
Okay now this is silly. The terms flexion and extension have the utility of description so that we may better understand a movement. The term 'Prime Mover' used interchangably with agonist, it is significant to the direction of a movement within a simple action. I would agree that the more complex the movement, the greater number of agonists, the less likely a prime mover is to be named...is this the point where you will again accuse me of being too academic or wait no, it's oversimplified...no wait...

(hmmm..say she's wrong...make a sermon...then when she clarifies...tell her she's saying too much)
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
In complex multi-joint movements such as a pulldown, one is only 'reducing degrees of freedom' insofar as doing any specific movement requires one to do something specific, thereby reducing movement possibilities - this has nothing to do with a taxonomical scheme of primaries vs. secondaries or isolating muscles. Virtually every muscle from the waist up is involved in the pulldown - which one stabilizes where, or generates motion where isn't of much practical import. Do the free-hanging version: the pull-up, and even more muscles come into play. Pulling something heavy down, or one's body up is not even close to 'isolationary' in any way - but it is a useful movement chain to become strong at.
Didn't you just say "I deliberately strive to avoid unnecessary complication in explanation"

?
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
I wrote what I wrote because you threw out a couple of flippant sentences that seemed to presume some very simplistic, dismissive things about training methodologies.
Uh, if you mean (by flippant)that it was disrespectful levity, you misinterpreted. I was recognising that wieghts are a legitimate area of conditioning, and so was running, but there are other possibilities as well.
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
My reply was to counter these, because too many people in Aikido seem to ignore or dismiss the usefulness of training methods that are universally used and valued in virtually every other athletic endeavor from the high school level up.
Okay now this is a sweeping generalization. Again, I'd say you tout this one program too much. There are other possibilities.
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
It had nothing to do with your ego or academia, which seems to be what most of what you've written here is about.
Hmmm, ego. Okay, I'll give in. I got poked in the eye with aspersion and I said "Hey!". I adressed your aspersion when I could've spent time in constructive conversation about conditioning. oops. So I'll put it to you, if you'd like to address any more of this discussion, send me an email so that we can leave the constructive discussion about many different training possibilities.
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

Aikido DVDs and Video Downloads - by George Ledyard Sensei & other great teachers from AikidoDVDS.Com



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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shioda, Tohei, and Ki Things Mike Sigman General 118 03-13-2010 06:18 AM
Training the Body for Martial Movement Upyu Training 25 01-03-2007 11:24 AM
Training the Body. Part 2: Exercesis Upyu Training 16 12-21-2006 01:54 PM
Systema Seminar with Vladimir Vasiliev, Part 1 aikibaka131 Seminars 2 07-22-2003 12:45 PM
Too much upper body strength Bruce Baker Techniques 18 11-29-2002 01:11 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:04 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 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