Building Kungfu muscle without weights (KFM article)

[Shaolindynasty]

I'll start by saying I liked the idea of this article and what it was trying to do. I did have some problems with the authors critisim of "western" train methods though. I liked the fact he advocated repetition and old school methods. I like those also, but the article was full of misconceptions concerning weight training. Here are some points made in the article

1. He claims we eat to much meat,

which I happen to agree with americans as a whole eat to much meat. Our diet does have problems which link to various health problems.

2. He uses the fact that you don't see any professional football players at age 60 as proof of our destructive training methods.

I would ask the question how many professional full contact fighters do you see at that age in any country? None, requardless of training methods

3. He claims by doing hundreds of repititions of movements you can build strength.

Which is true.

Then he goes forward to say you can quite whenever you want and not get fat.

As if you get "fat" when you quit lifting weights. muscle and fat are not the same thing, one cannot transform into the other. I won't even go into the scientific reasons for this

4. He says Bruce Lee's physique came from repetitions of movement and not weight training.

Partial truth. Read "art of expressing the human body" Bruce Lee followed many different weight training regimens. His physique was an example of what could happen if you did both types of training.

5.He article seems to be written to dismiss the need for weight training but then describes exercises such as.

A. squats and pushups with a person on your back (same as weight, just because it is a person and not steel doesn't make the principle different, just less acurate in measurment)

B. an exercise where a partner pushes against your hand while you punch (resistance, your body wouldn't know the difference between this and a cable or rubber band)

Overall it was an intersting read though. Let's have more training articles like this in KFM

[Shaolindynasty]

I wanted to say the reason I posted this was because I had allot of these misconceptions when I started training. So I held off on weight training for years.

When I started training with weights I found I had better stamina, was stronger and got injured less.

I advocate both modern and old training methods.

[bodhitree]

"4. He says Bruce Lee's physique came from repetitions of movement and not weight training. "


then why did bruce lee lift weights


" would ask the question how many professional full contact fighters do you see at that age in any country? None, requardless of training methods"

What country do you see full contact fighters at 60?

[monkeyfoot]

Im kinda simular, for some reason I dont like the idea of weights as in 'peck dec' etc and the multigyms.....

I do exactly the same sort of training but use natural things like you mentioned. I skip and run with weights on me, leg lifts with sacks on my feet, pressups on bricks.

I dunno, im quite into the whole kung fu romanticism, training with nature and stuff like that.

craig

[Shaolindynasty]

"What country do you see full contact fighters at 60?"

None, which is my point.

[Fu-Pow]

I think most of the criticism of "modern methods" is directed at the prevalence of body building type exercises and rehab type exercises that are the staples of "certified" weight training regimens.

Basically, I see no divide between body weight exercises and weight training exercises for martial arts.

The requirements are the same for the exercises:

1) Fullest range of motion (exercising the belly of muscle all the way out to the tendons)
2) Whole body engaged in gravity ( to activate the core and stablizing muscles)
3) Compound exercises (multiple muscle groups)
4) Accelerate on the positive and decelerate on the negative.

I might also add to that (when appropriate):

5) Aerobic component to the lift/exercises (ie HIIT, circuits)
6) Plyometrics

What doesn't work is sitting on a bench doing bicep curls trying to look lovely. You've got to work you whole body, in gravity, with intensity for martial arts.

[dougadam]

I feel the basic’s would be 1000 push-ups a day. Plus 1000 squats a day.
Which can be attained!

[hitman142002]

This guy seems to use some seriously bad examples throughout. A Pro football player is paid to be HUGE- not simply atheletic. Though some positions differ...
Bruce Lee trained with as many different methods as he could- again trying to figure out which worked best. Weight training was a big part of his training- I have several pictures of him at a bench pumping iron. He was also fond of using electro-stimulus- electrodes zapping muscles into a tight contraction which replicated an exercise repitition.
ANYWAY...the deal is quite simple. You cannot build muscle without moving with weights. Now, you can certainly get the APPEARANCE of added muscle by TONING your existing muscle, and reducing your fat with isometrics and cardiovascular exercise. This will get you "hard" and "ripped" looking. Diet is also a pretty big factor in this, but generally, if you work out skipping rope, walking or jogging and doing no-weight push ups and squats, you will "harden" yourself.
Now, getting BIG is another story altogether. I could write a book on this, but VERY simply put, you need to eat MORE (of the right foods) and do movements with progressively larger weights to get bigger muscles (see Joe Weider's "progressive overload" principal).
Finally, muscle is not fat and vice versa. Muscle NEVER turns into fat if you quit lifting. Muscle atrophies (gets smaller) and sometimes gets replaced by added fatty tissue, but it doesn't simply turn into fat. It may look like it, but this is not the case.
Finally- before I get REALLY wordy- martial artists should not necessarily desire to get really big anyway. I debated this with a student of mine who is an avid body builder and I broke down into Physics. Force (like a punch) equals mass times acceleration squared. F=MA2. Look at that and you will see that how FAST you throw the punch means WAY more than how big and beefy the fist or arm is throwing it.
Lessee if this starts a debate...

[SevenStar]

People usually confused "equipment training" vs. "weight training". In CMA, the equipment training is a must. If you don't do it then your skill may only work against average opponents but not against any strong opponents.


If you are training your throws with pulleys, carrying weighted vases, lifting stone locks, etc. then you are still strength training.

[SevenStar]

there is technically no such thing as toning a muscle...

[SevenStar]

Finally- before I get REALLY wordy- martial artists should not necessarily desire to get really big anyway. I debated this with a student of mine who is an avid body builder and I broke down into Physics. Force (like a punch) equals mass times acceleration squared. F=MA2. Look at that and you will see that how FAST you throw the punch means WAY more than how big and beefy the fist or arm is throwing it.
Lessee if this starts a debate...

The thing is that that is far more applicable to machines than humans. Why? machines move faster. a semi going 30 mph and a ferrari going 150 - sure, what you say is valid. But humans won't differ that greatly in speed. De la hoya or tyson - de la hoya is faster, but which do you really think can hit you harder?

[Scott R. Brown]

doesn't simply turn into fat. It may look like it, but this is not the case.
Finally- before I get REALLY wordy- martial artists should not necessarily desire to get really big anyway. I debated this with a student of mine who is an avid body builder and I broke down into Physics. Force (like a punch) equals mass times acceleration squared. F=MA2. Look at that and you will see that how FAST you throw the punch means WAY more than how big and beefy the fist or arm is throwing it.
Lessee if this starts a debate...

Keep in mind that size equals more "potential force" so the punch does not need to be as fast. Also technique is less important when you are of larger size. A smaller person MUST use proper form to achieve his full power whereas a larger person can fudge but still remain powerful.

And finally a larger person can sustain more punishment. There is a reason we don't see light weight boxers in the ring with heavy weights. They would get killed!!

[IronFist]

ignore this post and see my next one.

[IronFist]

Oh geez.


1. He claims we eat to much meat,

which I happen to agree with americans as a whole eat to much meat. Our diet does have problems which link to various health problems.

Probably. But meat = protein which is REQUIRED to build muscles, despite what hippies will tell you.


2. He uses the fact that you don't see any professional football players at age 60 as proof of our destructive training methods.

I would ask the question how many professional full contact fighters do you see at that age in any country? None, requardless of training methods

His point proves nothing, other than the human body naturally degrades over time (past a certain age). Show me a 60 year old martial artist who is a) stronger than he was when he was 30 and b) who is in better shape than a pro football player. I didn't say "in better health," because there's probably lots of those. The article was talking about strength, so that's the context in which I'm keeping my argument.

On that note, many powerlifters don't peak until later in like (30-40+).


3. He claims by doing hundreds of repititions of movements you can build strength.

Which is true.

Um, no. It builds endurance. Strength is the ability to exert a lot of force. A powerlifter deadlifing 600lbs requires a lot of strength. A marathon runner running a marathon does not. A weight that is light enough to allow you to do "hundreds of reps" will not provide enough muscular or neurological stimulation to develop "strength." This is why powerlifters train with heavy weights and low reps, and why marathoners won't benefit by increasing their raw strength. If you can do 40 pushups, and you can bench a max of x pounds, and you increase the amount of pushups you can do to 100, you will not have increased your bench press weight at all.


Then he goes forward to say you can quite whenever you want and not get fat.

As if you get "fat" when you quit lifting weights. muscle and fat are not the same thing, one cannot transform into the other. I won't even go into the scientific reasons for this

Correct. Muscle cannot turn into fat. People tend to get fat when they stop working out because they're no longer burning extra calories, but they're probably still eating extra calories. Caloric surplus = weight gain.


4. He says Bruce Lee's physique came from repetitions of movement and not weight training.

Partial truth. Read "art of expressing the human body" Bruce Lee followed many different weight training regimens. His physique was an example of what could happen if you did both types of training.

"The Art of Expressing the Human Body" is not a very good book. At any rate, Bruce Lee's physique came from his genetics, his insanely low bodyfat, and the fact that he managed to develop a little bit of muscles because he thought that bodybuilders were at the top of the muscle training knowledge ladder and he modeled some of his weight lifting workouts after then.


5.He article seems to be written to dismiss the need for weight training but then describes exercises such as.

A. squats and pushups with a person on your back (same as weight, just because it is a person and not steel doesn't make the principle different, just less acurate in measurment)

Right. Your muscles don't care where the resistance is coming from. They only care that they're working against some force. Hypertrophy (muscle growth) comes from the proper combination of sets, reps, time under tension, intensity, and, most importantly, the right diet (many people fail to gain muscle because they don't eat enough to promote hypertrophy).

Many people (especially martial artists) think that lifting weights = bad, or it will make you big and slow for some reason (which is an entire other discussion as to why that's not true, either), but then they suggest all these alternatives to weight lifting that are fairly similiar (and often not as effective).


Overall it was an intersting read though. Let's have more training articles like this in KFM

I should have my own strength training editorial column. omg did I just say that? Hi Gene :D :D :cool: Just kidding. No one would like my column because I would take all the BS out of training myths and people don't want to know that doing 1000 crunches a day won't get rid of their fat gut.

[IronFist]

The purpose of the weight training is to build beautiful looking muscle. The purpose of the equipment training is to build effective moves. You may still get beautiful muscle from equipment training but not the other way around.

Again, as I said in my previous post, your body doesn't care from where the resistance comes. Your muscle contracts the same way against a freeweight, a pulley, an opponent, or anything else that provides resistance.


Most of the personal trainers in the gym talk about isolate muscle groups.

While it seems contrary to the obvious, most personal trainers aren't the best people to talk to about fitness.


Besides the pulley, the modern gym has no single weight training equipment that can develop "body unification".

You mean the entire body working together at once? Powerlifters do it all the time. So do Olympic lifters.


Even by using the pulley, most people just develop their fore arm muscle (standing still and only move the upper arm) and nothing else. Does anybody in the gym care about "body unification - the complete body muscle function as one unit"? I don't think so.

Athletes do.


Should we correct them? Should we convince "Taiji for health" people that Taiji is also a combat art? I don't think they care about it.

Different people have different goals for training. The Taiji for health people probably don't care about the martial aspects the same way a bodybuilder doesn't care how much he can deadlift because when he's on stage he's getting judged on how he LOOKS and now how much he can lift.

[Sifu Darkfist]

why not incorporate weights? you can mix all kinds of things to get that bod strong. if you are worried about losing speed all you need to do is jump rop and punch fast in between sets never stop moving.

[SevenStar]

The purpose of the weight training is to build beautiful looking muscle.

No, bodybuilding is. I specifically said strength training.


The purpose of the equipment training is to build effective moves. You may still get beautiful muscle from equipment training but not the other way around.

your body doesn't say "Hey, we're apparatus training, so build functional muscle!!" It has no clue.


Most of the personal trainers in the gym talk about isolate muscle groups.

Insider secret: Not all personal trainers really know what they are talking about. Also, you have to think about who they are talking about this to - the general public. The average joe isn't lifting for functional muscle strength, he's trying to make himself look better. isolation exercises are fine for this man.



Besides the pulley, the modern gym has no single weight training equipment that can develop "body unification".

ya think so? try looking into powerlifting movements and olympic lifts.


Does anybody in the gym care about "body unification - the complete body muscle function as one unit"? I don't think so.

you think incorrectly.

[Shaolindynasty]

-doing hundreds of reps will build more power in a technique. If done poperly you will be working on the mechanics of the movement and increaseing the effect of the move. It doesn't build muscle strength though and has little to do with that. I should've went into more detail on that.


Allot of you seem to think of weight training as "bodybuilding". It's not, weight training(part of a strength training regimen) is resitance exercise for sport specific results. It's part of an overall conditioning program for any athlete.