Guest guest Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Combat sports, as team sports are sports with variable motor regimen. You noted this right. Training in such cases tends to become complex, since there are many bio-motor abilities which must be trained simultaneously. Added complexity is added by the fact that such sports require a lot of technical-tactical preparation. You agreed with me that recovery processes are essentially aerobic. Another stress of aerobic systems comes from the length of the fights. We should not underestimate the aerobic requirement of repeated bouts of exercise. About basing everything on strength and power. Strength and power training is essential in combat sports. Strength is essential in just about any activity. But its useless to have strength and power, if you dont have the ability to express this power in the technical movements for the whole duration of a fight. And here ,strength endurance is crucial. Inability to maintain power in technical movements will doom you. you will fatigue, and fatigue leads into fear. The truth is much more fights are loss due to proper conditioning, than to the lack of max-strength. Ill refer you to a classic match in MMA history, Rodrigo Nogueira Vs Bob Sapp. Nogueira won. No small wonder, he was better technically, and better conditioned. Once Sapp run out of gas, he was lost, no matter his bull like strength, and the insane punishment he inflected on Nogueira in the first phase. This scenario is not singular. you can see it time and again in combat. Be very careful how much trust you put in strength. Always keep in mind that its useless **if** it cant be expressed. My approach to conditioning is sports with variable motor regime is sequential. It consist of a succession of training means, each one building on the effect of previous one. To answer your question, steady runs or tempo runs are used as general conditioning means, they ensure a strong training effect which will allow subsequent more specific conditioning loads. The aerobic potential developed is also very important in developing the required work capacity to execute the training loads of later training, and to recover easily from said training loads. In subsequent phases, conditioning is moved toward more specific. Interval training is used, special conditioning drills and so on, intensity is ramped up. In a word, we realize the necessary energetics progressively. Steady runs or swimming can still be used in recovery workouts to facilitate recovery, but the training load finalization is shifted from general-developmental to recovery. Another aspect which we IMO should not be neglected is one closely liked to human physiology. Questions: 1. How fast are anaerobic glycolytic power and capacity developed in time ? 2. How long lasts the residual training effect of glycolytic power and capacity ? (think at it at how long you can maintain the level of training after the training load ceased to be applied) 3. What is the metabolic and hormonal response of intense glycolytic power and capacity ? Does the metabolic / hormonal response of such training lead to conflicting responses to other types of training ? 4. What is the impact of adaptive capacity of the body of intense glycolytic power and capacity training loads ? Now, if you answer to those questions you will see that it leads to interesting conclusions: 1. Such adaptations are lost pretty fast.Very short residuals. So you only need to peak them with a short time before the event. 2. They are exhausting the adaptation capacity pretty fast, and they are incompatible with max-strength and power loads. When training technical tactical elements during a microcyle of developing glycolytic power and capacity one should pay special attention to how training is structured, for such loads may have negative impact on technique. 3. In the light of above is useless to go with such exercises all time round at high intensity in many sports. You would steal valuable adaptation reserve, cause complications with technical-tactical training. Furhtermore , when think at the aerobic capacity required in a sport, one should not only think at the characteristics of the event itself, bit also at the structure of training. The work capacity supports ***not only the event***, but also supports the countless hours of training ***leading to the event***. So, to conclude: 1. power is always expressed in a specific energetic regime. Strength and speed which you cant express is mighty **useless**. 2. obey physiology. if you can do more with less, doit. Spare adaptation capacity and minimize application of training loads which have incompatible effects. Know how hard you can develop and how fast you loose a specific ability. 3. support the training !!! not only the event. 4. Never forget that low intensity aerobic training loads are very useful for recovery. Dan Partelly Oradea, Romania > > > > **** Ross rejects the predominant use of aerobic or LSD training for > > fighters. He espouses much of the anaerobic conditioning that we're > > used to seeing nowadays in fighters.**** > > > > , I know you're only quoting someone else, but I really wonder > > if this move away from steady-state aerobic conditioning in some US > > sports -- not necessarily long, slow distance -- is responsible for > > the decline in performance in certain sports. > > > > The boxing results for the USA at the Beijing Olympics were, > > reportedly, the worst in 60 years. From what I recall, it was > > abominable. > > > > The US used to dominate marathon running but nary a champion these > > days. Okay, the rise of the Africans is partly responsible for that, > > but you can see the point I'm making. As Dan has pointed out, sports > > and activities in which there is a lot of prolonged movement, with > > not much break, need a decent aerobic base. You can get some of this > > with high-intensity interval training, but you can't get the same > > capillary and mitochondrial density that make the difference to > > endurance performance -- nor probably collateral blood supply. > > > > I also see Crossfit and others promoted for military training. Okay, > > that might be one part of an acceptable program, but we shouldn't get > > the idea that you can get fit for military service, especially in the > > elite forces, without doing some real aerobic training -- and that > > means plenty of distance running! > > > > > > Gympie, Australia > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Physical preparation is always periodized in a way or another, besides, I really dont know from where you jump to the conclusion of " many years " being necessary for a base. Its incorrect to jump to conclusions, regardless the conclusion is " we make somebody run for many years " or tautologically presenting a phrase like (my paraphrase) " running alone in addition to fight training will ... " . What do you think , after how many weeks of training Vo2 max gains will plateau during a macrocycle? Do you really think ... many years ? Dan Partelly Oradea, Romania > > Dan > > Because, many years of being made to run long distance to gain a " base " for > a sprint or variable motor regime just about rubs off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 > > Hi Dan > > You wrote > Now, if you would only give it one year , and leave the club, you may > say afterward " what an idiot, he made me run, and now I learn how > beneficial is heavy SC regimen " . Yes, very useful, as long as it doe > not rob from the quality of technical and skill sessions. > > ***** > I trained with the same rugby coach for at the same school same coach for > three years, there was no knowlege of weight conditioning. Even the > technical aspects of contact and contact mechanics were assumed as if you > got them out othin air. We were a moderatly good rugby side, with only two > losses in my senior equivalent year. Even today, with much more focus on > training, things are improving, but if I hear to many more people including > doctors and physio's tell me that kids can't lift until they are 16 I think > I may just explode. > **** Yes Nick. As I said, I didn't commented on your example, because obviously I have no idea what happened. I only offered a different perspective. I don't deny there are a lot of idiots. The phisosophy in SC in east was a bit different, in many cases good coaches demanded mastery of your own bodyweight before starting " lifting weights' from kids. IMO is wise. Doesn't take that much time to achieve and protects against possible injuries. Dan Partelly Oradea, Romania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.