Ideas to work on stamina

[bigsam]

Hi

Any ideas to improve stamina.

I'm looking for workouts, circuit training, core training, methods and etc.

I do the usual jogging-running but struggle with that too.

[iron_leg_dave]

Hi

Any ideas to improve stamina.

I'm looking for workouts, circuit training, core training, methods and etc.

I do the usual jogging-running but struggle with that too.

The best way to achieve physical stamina is to work on mental endurance I think.

In traditional gong fu, there are lot's of ways we work on improving our mental endurance. The most common is standing postures, and repative training of techniques. These methods naturally build mental endurance, particularly if your intention is to do so.

When you run, if your doing standing post, you should feel like even though your body is giving out, you have this invisible mental strength that allows you, even encourages you to carry on as long as you will.

I know that I could run long enough to really hurt myself, and keep running. When I have a hard labor day of work, I really have to watch myself. I would definately attribute this quality to standing post.

[bigsam]

The best way to achieve physical stamina is to work on mental endurance I think.



How would you advice to do this....

I suppose i do have a big pain barrier that i need to overcome

[iron_leg_dave]

If your going to do gong fu, you should get used to pain. Atleast used to not being used to it, and being able to cause it to yourself.

You don't even need deep stances to train endurance though. It is mental. Tree holding in tai ji, isn't painful, but if it is done in the right frame of mind every single day will greatly enhance your endurace. Doing your gong fu, atleast an hour a day everyday, especially when you don't want to, will increase your endurance.

Keep thinking of ways to improve your endurance, and focus on training it.

The way I started doing internal work like that, was by focusing on will power, then endurance, then honesty, then courage, etc.

Just doing my kung fu every day, thinking of what I was working on. Throughout the day, I would be thinking about will, or endurance or whatever. Until I was ready to move on to the next thing.

A big part of gong fu is wu de etc. And training forms, drills etc, with the right ideas in mind will build the mental components of kung fu.

Later, I could muster courage, or summon will.

Now, if I need some endurance etc. it manifests itself.

[MasterKiller]

That's a hokey answer, Iron Leg.

We use different variations of Tabata (20 second on, 10 second off) intervals. For example:

1st set (20 secs): Jumping jacks

break 10 secs

2nd set (20 secs): Punch heavy bag

break 10 secs

3rd set (20 secs): Kettlebell cleans

break 10 secs

4th set (20 secs): Punch and sprawl

break 10 secs

5th set (20 secs): Knees on Heavy bag

break 10 secs

Repeat this 3 times.

[Mr Punch]

That's a mean looking workout MK.

And not that it matters but it isn't technically Tabatas. The Tabata Protocol works eight repetitions of the same exercise - that's what makes it special, otherwise it's just another interval.

He designed it so you couldn't do more than 15-20 reps each time. I've had this debate before, in that if the exercise is very similar (i.e. different kinds of push-up) is it still Tabata, because it means I can do way more reps. The answer appears to be yes and no! For example normal and wide spread push-ups are probably close enough to the same range of movement, as are normal and narrow, but wide, narrow and normal are working too many different muscle groups... probably... well, that's my interpretation anyway, but pure Tabatas are the same exercise.

The other thing to remember about Tabatas is that even top athletes shouldn't do them more than three times a week because the specific taxing effect on the nervous system of working essentially through failure six or seven times in four minutes is not good for your head or body.

But that's enough about Tabatas: I agree with you that any programme of HIIT (Tabatas or otherwise) is going to be good for stamina.

[Mr Punch]

Incidentally, my MMA coach used to get us 'warmed up' (= 'knackered out') by giving five minutes of similar drills to yours with about 20-30 secs on and 10-15 secs off (I don't know how long, I'm guessing)... except that the 'off' was always punching/kicking the bag...! :eek:

[TenTigers]

last night I had a discussion with my student, Pan.(Pan trains Muay Chaya and Muay Boran in Thailand, and won his first MMA event there). He brought up a very intersting point.
He said that running is not productive cardio for a fighter. Better to do sports specific such as bagwork.
It makes sense to me,
what are your thoughts?
-although I enjoy my runs. I do a mile warm-up and then six-eight sprints, and then a cool-down.
tabatas look awesome. I will work those into my training.

[Mr Punch]

He said that running is not productive cardio for a fighter. Better to do sports specific such as bagwork...This is correct.

Running is an aerobic exercise. Fighting is anaerobic.

Training running is good for you mentally and physically for any other aerobic activity (therefore for self-defence related stuff... you can er... run away a lot better!), and good for just plain old ballsing it out.

It isn't much use for fighting, unless someone's lung capacity is really crap anyway.

Intervals is the way. Sprinting intervals is also cool.

[SDJerry]

That's a hokey answer, Iron Leg.

We use different variations of Tabata (20 second on, 10 second off) intervals. For example:

1st set (20 secs): Jumping jacks

break 10 secs

2nd set (20 secs): Punch heavy bag

break 10 secs

3rd set (20 secs): Kettlebell cleans

break 10 secs

4th set (20 secs): Punch and sprawl

break 10 secs

5th set (20 secs): Knees on Heavy bag

break 10 secs

Repeat this 3 times.

I agree 100%! I'm definitely a kettlebell advocate myself. We switch things up alot too... sometimes we do the circuit training similar to above, sometimes we focus on doing a certain task for time. Say snatching a kettlebell for 3 minutes, 5 minutes, and even 10 on occasion. One teaches you explosiveness while the other teaches you to pace yourself.

Jumping rope is a great exercise! You can also work your footwork from a fighting posture while holding a 5lb dumb bell in each hand. Don't worry about shadow boxing just try to keep your hands up. It will help condition your shoulders.

[cjurakpt]

post standing is an excellent practice (when my life permitted it, 20 min minimum at a pop, up to an hour if I was "in the zone") and will train many things, for example awareness / correction of postural imbalance, relationship of the breathing mechanism to ground reaction force, and awareness / quieting of the discursive mind; it will not train aerobic capacity / endurance because it's not engaging the neuromuscular and cardiorespiratory systems the same way dynamic exercises do; which is why Yi Jin Jing exists (well, at least our version, which has 43 exercises and when done full out can be a real killer...)

also agree about fighters doing as sport-specific training as possible: straight out running does no train the types of attributes needed for fighting, mainly because it's using different muscles groups and the firing patterns are different; by comparison, tennis is much closer to fighting then running / swimming in terms of muscle function (short, explosive, timing / distance is critical, efficient power delivery) and mental focus (strategy under pressure, killer instinct, not choking when you are about to put away the match)

[bakxierboxer]

Running is an aerobic exercise. Fighting is anaerobic.


A fact that seems to be seldom mentioned.........

[JGTevo]

Running is an aerobic exercise. Fighting is anaerobic.

Attacking is anaerobic.

Fighting is a combination of aerobic and anaerobic endurance. Boxers and MMA fighters don't just build up strong aerobic endurance for nothing.

[bakxierboxer]

Attacking is anaerobic.

Fighting is a combination of aerobic and anaerobic endurance. Boxers and MMA fighters don't just build up strong aerobic endurance for nothing.


Lemme guess....

They build up their aerobic endurance for those long periods when they aren't attacking?

[JGTevo]

They build up their aerobic endurance for those long periods when they aren't attacking?

If someone can provide a scientific explanation on how boxing, fighting, etc. is even 50% or more anaerobic I'd love to hear it.

Generally an Anaerobic exercise is characterized by a short burst of intense exertion. This would be for example, a punch. This is not, for example, the energy needed to retract the punch, the energy needed to evade or defend, feint, or the energy needed to move around the opponent.

Boxing and MMA use aerobic and anaerobic exercises because fighting requires significant amounts of conditioning for both.

If you have a logical, scientifically verifiable response I'd love to hear that, instead of your poorly thought out sarcasm.

[JGTevo]

Additionally - If you look at the stats for one of boxing biggest matches - Cotto Vs. Margarito - You'll find Margarito threw roughly about 90 punches per round. That anaerobic exertion to punch takes a fraction of a section, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, and saying that the anaerobic exertion last for an entire second - That's still only half of the round. The other half, a minute 30, is all aerobic. Thats 50% for the fighter at the top of the Welterweight division, Cotto threw roughly 60 punches per round. Don't expect anyone heavier than him to come even close to that many punches thrown per round, as Marg did.

[bakxierboxer]

If someone can provide a scientific explanation on how boxing, fighting, etc. is even 50% or more anaerobic I'd love to hear it.

That would be very dependent on the fighter.



Generally an Anaerobic exercise is characterized by a short burst of intense exertion. This would be for example, a punch. This is not, for example, the energy needed to retract the punch, the energy needed to evade or defend, feint, or the energy needed to move around the opponent.

Now YOU are re-defining what you previously categorized as "attack".
You seem to be limiting it to nothing except striking/punching.... and a single one, at that.



If you have a logical, scientifically verifiable response I'd love to hear that, instead of your poorly thought out sarcasm.

It WAS an "honest question" based on your definition as posted.
(ok, maybe there was a tinge of sarcasm that happily accrued to the simplest form of query)

[JGTevo]

Now YOU are re-defining what you previously categorized as "attack".
You seem to be limiting it to nothing except striking/punching.... and a single one, at that.

You don't need to limit it to striking(and the punch was used as an example), but can you show me an anaerobic way to do any of the things I've mentioned? Certain defenses in some cases, but those are uncommon. Grappling may have a greater need for anaerobic conditioning, but unless I am missing something, can you tell me what system teaches an anaerobic method of footwork, evasive body movement, etc.?

There is, without a doubt, a great deal of both aerobic and anaerobic conditioning required for MMA and Boxing, and by extension, fighting.

[bakxierboxer]

You don't need to limit it to striking(and the punch was used as an example), but can you show me an anaerobic way to do any of the things I've mentioned?.....
can you tell me what system teaches an anaerobic method of footwork, evasive body movement, etc.?

"Most" Hakka short-hand systems.... SPM seems to me to be a fair example.

Also see: http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=anaerobic%20&gwp=16

"Applying to exercise: more intense than can be maintained in balance with oxygen intake, aerobic pathways being insufficient to supply energy at the required rate (though they always contribute as well) — as in a 200-metre sprint."

Additionally, there are sequences within H'ung Kuen and most other southern TCMA that are meant to be practiced/done in that manner.

In use/application, it is again dependent on the fighter.

[JGTevo]

I have experience in Jook Lum SPM and I understand how much is anaerobic. However when it comes to fighting, it's one of those systems untested in modern times. Fighting can be done more anaerobically than aerobically, absolutely. But that's theoretical. Theoretically, in most systems the fight should end in a few seconds. Theoretically I could end a fight without using aerobic or anaerobic conditioning, with Systema's no touch knockout(ugh..), or Derren Brown's mental trick of a no-touch punch(which is actually legitimate for susceptible people)... But when it comes to stamina, not only do the majority of systems rely on both aerobic and anaerobic conditioning but also the entirety of those tested.

You could say that now that I'm changing or narrowing the definition - However when I spoke of how much anaerobic and aerobic conditioning is necessary, It was regarding what is not only most widely used but also widely tested to work in a real situation.



"Applying to exercise: more intense than can be maintained in balance with oxygen intake, aerobic pathways being insufficient to supply energy at the required rate (though they always contribute as well) — as in a 200-metre sprint."

Not really sure why you posted this? It basically says that aerobic conditioning contributes but is insufficient for anaerobic exercise...



In use/application, it is again dependent on the fighter.

I completely agree. Some fighters are able to conserve energy incredibly well, such as counter-fighters.. other fighters have several more boundaries that affect their stamina, such as performance anxiety.

[sanjuro_ronin]

A few things:

Tabata protocol = 170% VO2 max, that is Tabata, unless you are there, what you are doing is moderate HIIT, true HIIT is over the 100% mark, something that CAN'T be done for more that 20 seconds at a pop and needs a 2:1 ratio ( 20 seconds on 10 seconds off of NO activity).
All the studies that show the uber-awesomness of HIIT usually bring up the Tabata results but for some reason forget to mention that way they got them.

Moderate HIIT is what 99% of all people that do HIIT, do.

As for boxing being Anerobic of aerobic or both, it is both, but obivoulsly more anerobic than aerobic, it is, depending on the sport- 3 minutes on, 1 minute off, or 2 minutes on 1 minute off.
Notice the aforementioned 2:1 ratio and the 3:1 ratio?
Typical HIIT.
Lets not forget the explosivness of boxing, another anerobic trait,
Pretty much all modern boxers and sport trainers have acknowledged the majority of MA as more anerobic than aerobic.

[bakxierboxer]

I have experience in Jook Lum SPM and I understand how much is anaerobic.

Then what IS the origin of your questions?



However when it comes to fighting, it's one of those systems untested in modern times.

Who'd you learn Jook Lum SPM from?



Fighting can be done more anaerobically than aerobically, absolutely. But that's theoretical.

Let's make up our minds here!
It either "can be done more anaerobically" (and it's an "absolute") or "that's theoretical".



Theoretically, in most systems the fight should end in a few seconds.

That's a good theory.... it even works that way more times than not.



Theoretically I could end a fight without using aerobic or anaerobic conditioning, with Systema's no touch knockout(ugh..), or Derren Brown's mental trick of a no-touch punch(which is actually legitimate for susceptible people)...

I'd say that those are more like "hypotheticals".



But when it comes to stamina, not only do the majority of systems rely on both aerobic and anaerobic conditioning but also the entirety of those tested.


Stamina has it's place.



You could say that now that I'm changing or narrowing the definition - However when I spoke of how much anaerobic and aerobic conditioning is necessary, It was regarding what is not only most widely used but also widely tested to work in a real situation.

It looks to me that your "real situation" is actually a "non-real situation".... competitive/ring sport-fighting.



Not really sure why you posted this? It basically says that aerobic conditioning contributes but is insufficient for anaerobic exercise...

More or less pointing out that aerobic conditioning can help/aid in anaerobic activities, but cannot achieve the same results on its own.



I completely agree. Some fighters are able to conserve energy incredibly well, such as counter-fighters.. other fighters have several more boundaries that affect their stamina, such as performance anxiety.

Conserving energy is a requirement to "go the distance".... which assumes that there IS a distance to go.

"counter fighting" is more or less the definition of "self-defense".

An "adrenaline dump" is often mistaken for "performance anxiety".

[bakxierboxer]

A few things:

HI! :)

Nice to see you're still about! :D
(got tired of "keeping your own counsel"?) :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

HI! :)

Nice to see you're still about! :D
(got tired of "keeping your own counsel"?) :rolleyes:

LOL !
Well, I got back from "way out east" and have more time and more patience.
I don't know if that is a good thing though.
:D

[bakxierboxer]

LOL !
Well, I got back from "way out east" and have more time and more patience.

You actually WENT somewhere? :D



I don't know if that is a good thing though. :D

I guess we'll all be finding out now, won't we? :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

You actually WENT somewhere? :D




I guess we'll all be finding out now, won't we? :rolleyes:

Was in Beijing for the Olympics and then went to Taiwan and Macao for a bit.
Roots and all that ;)

[bakxierboxer]

Was in Beijing for the Olympics and then went to Taiwan and Macao for a bit.
Roots and all that ;)

OH?
Lucky you!
I was wondering what you'd been doing in "Yurp"....
which is what I think of as being to the east of North America.

Get any good rooting done?

[sanjuro_ronin]

OH?
Lucky you!
I was wondering what you'd been doing in "Yurp"....
which is what I think of as being to the east of North America.

Get any good rooting done?

:D
Its good to remember things we forget.
Its also good to see that the path we are on is not THAT far out of whack, LOL !

[bakxierboxer]

:D
Its good to remember things we forget.

Not into Elvis? ("I Forgot to Remember to Forget")



Its also good to see that the path we are on is not THAT far out of whack, LOL !

OTOH, Speaking of Whacks..... there is always:

The "Evil Dr. Tung's House Of Whacks" (URL on request)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not into Elvis? ("I Forgot to Remember to Forget")




OTOH, Speaking of Whacks..... there is always:

The "Evil Dr. Tung's House Of Whacks" (URL on request)

*shudders*, some things never change ;)

[bakxierboxer]

*shudders*, some things never change ;)

:confused:
Awwww.... that's just my deceased younger brother's blog.

His sense of humor was a little bit stranger than mine. :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

:confused:
Awwww.... that's just my deceased younger brother's blog.

His sense of humor was a little bit stranger than mine. :rolleyes:

*shudders to the power of 10* !

Back on topic...;)

Many fighters still train more like endurance athletes than explosive ones and that is a combination of factors:
Old guard doesn't give up easy
You DO need endurance
Its time consuming and gives you room for thought ( roadwork)
There is some transference, its not pointless.

[bakxierboxer]

*shudders to the power of 10* !

?????
You come back from "back east" with a case of the shudders?



Many fighters still train more like endurance athletes than explosive ones and that is a combination of factors:
Old guard doesn't give up easy

Different Old Guards?



You DO need endurance

Especially when "in durance vile"......



Its time consuming and gives you room for thought ( roadwork)

"TV, or not TV!
Consumption become of it?"



There is some transference, its not pointless.

Yeh, you do need them transfers when going from say the Red Line to the Blue Line
(nowadays, they come with no guarantees that they won't run into something)
((although I hear that they're considering instituting a point system for survivors))

[sanjuro_ronin]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

LOL !

[bakxierboxer]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

LOL !

Uproariously funny it ain't......
But, still...... talk to one of those enviro-types and they'll start quoting fatality stats atcha..... and prove (to their own satisfaction) that you're gonna be safer dying in a mass-transit conveyance than a personal car....... or something like that.

:confused:


Hmmm.... maybe they mean you'll be "more relaxed" when you meet your maker whilst comfortably ensconced in their latest and greatest cattle-car, scheduled at their convenience, of course.

[JGTevo]

Let's make up our minds here!
It either "can be done more anaerobically" (and it's an "absolute") or "that's theoretical".

It's theoretical that it can be done almost entirely anaerobically, because it has yet to be proven in modern times. There's no irrefutable evidence of it working against skilled opponents, anywhere.



It looks to me that your "real situation" is actually a "non-real situation".... competitive/ring sport-fighting.

The funniest thing is, MMA/Boxing uses rules to make everything even, which makes the results as close to the real thing as possible. In a real fight you could be a 120lb guy going up against a 300lb guy, or a 300lb guy going up against a 120lb guy. WTF does that prove??? Obviously you don't need stamina if the odds are so heavily in your favor. Obviously you can use just about anything to end a fight in a couple seconds if your opponent doesn't know what the hell they're doing. But MMA/Boxing is great because they provide even matchups. As even as it gets in terms of experience, weight, height, etc, so where it really does matter who is the better actual fighter, who has the better skill. These results mean a hell of a lot more than most so-called "real" fights.





More or less pointing out that aerobic conditioning can help/aid in anaerobic activities, but cannot achieve the same results on its own.

It cannot achieve the same results on its own in regards to anaerobic activity. I never said it couldn't???



Conserving energy is a requirement to "go the distance".... which assumes that there IS a distance to go.

A fighter should ALWAYS assume there IS a distance to go, no? Hope for the best, prepare for the worst?



"counter fighting" is more or less the definition of "self-defense".

In the loosest terms. Counter-Fighting in terms of how it is used in boxing/mma is very different than just "He punches, I block and punch back".



An "adrenaline dump" is often mistaken for "performance anxiety".

I never said it wasn't??

[bakxierboxer]

It's theoretical that it can be done almost entirely anaerobically, because it has yet to be proven in modern times. There's no irrefutable evidence of it working against skilled opponents, anywhere.

By the same token, it's gonna take quite a bit of proof to show that anyone can defeat a highly skilled opponent while "laying back" and using less than their utmost/highest level of output.



The funniest thing is, MMA/Boxing uses rules to make everything even, which makes the results as close to the real thing as possible.

and


In a real fight you could be a 120lb guy going up against a 300lb guy, or a 300lb guy going up against a 120lb guy. WTF does that prove???

Other than that you now have two (2) definitions for what I assume is "a fight";
"the real thing" vs "a real fight"?



Obviously you don't need stamina if the odds are so heavily in your favor. Obviously you can use just about anything to end a fight in a couple seconds if your opponent doesn't know what the hell they're doing.

And now you're adding two (2) conditions that should produce "a foregone conclusion"
as "odds" ("chance"/probability):
(a) in the form of a size/strength advantage
vs
(b) an opponent who doesn't know what they're doing.



But MMA/Boxing is great because they provide even matchups. As even as it gets in terms of experience, weight, height, etc, so where it really does matter who is the better actual fighter, who has the better skill. These results mean a hell of a lot more than most so-called "real" fights.

An "even match-up" of this sort is an artificial contrivance.... not "natural".
I have no question that such an event is probably the "best determinant" of the "better skill" criteria.... although you still have to "make allowances" for "the breaks of the game".

In such a controlled situation, survival itself is seldom at risk and the risk of debilitating injury is minimized as much as is practical.

In a "natural"/"uncontrolled" situation, the risks are of a much higher order.
Some folks will be bound to think that this type of situation has a hell of a lot more meaning for them.



It cannot achieve the same results on its own in regards to anaerobic activity. I never said it couldn't???

OK.
That said, how is it that you can put apparently equal weight on two distinctly different qualities/abilities, when only one of them seems at all likely to win for you by itself?



A fighter should ALWAYS assume there IS a distance to go, no? Hope for the best, prepare for the worst?

You're entitled to use whatever expectations you like.
I prefer a "more definitive" "outlook".



In the loosest terms. Counter-Fighting in terms of how it is used in boxing/mma is very different than just "He punches, I block and punch back".


That statement doesn't do much for defining "counter fighting".... not even "loosely".

[JGTevo]

By the same token, it's gonna take quite a bit of proof to show that anyone can defeat a highly skilled opponent while "laying back" and using less than their utmost/highest level of output.

Sure. Here's your proof. Go check out fights from
MMA
Kickboxing
Boxing
Muay Thai

To name a few. Then go ask a trainer or expert from any of these how important aerobic endurance is to their fighters.



Other than that you now have two (2) definitions for what I assume is "a fight";
"the real thing" vs "a real fight"?

This is getting ridiculous. You're avoiding the facts by side-stepping my points. Even if I was defining it as such, it'd still be irrelevant. My definition of a fight has nothing to do with proof of any all-anaerobic fighting styles being effective.

Find me proof of it. I'll throw ya one more definition too, testimony from a friend of a dude who did it, or a couple of low quality videos of people fighting no-name jerks, doesn't count.



And now you're adding two (2) conditions that should produce "a foregone conclusion"
as "odds" ("chance"/probability):
(a) in the form of a size/strength advantage
vs
(b) an opponent who doesn't know what they're doing.

Again, you're either avoiding my points intentionally or you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. That was an example of the uncertainty of a street fight. There are no checks and balances to make sure it is as fair as possible. You can take a video of an SPM guy destroying another guy but unlike MMA/Boxing, we have no idea what the other guy was capable of in the first place. Thus it is irrelevant. Even if they were both amazing, it provides no proof whatsoever as we have no idea who these people are and we've never seen them fight before.



In such a controlled situation, survival itself is seldom at risk and the risk of debilitating injury is minimized as much as is practical.

In a "natural"/"uncontrolled" situation, the risks are of a much higher order.
Some folks will be bound to think that this type of situation has a hell of a lot more meaning for them.

Depends entirely on the person and the situation. Many boxers/MMA fighters throughout the years have talked about their feelings before a fight. It's usually very intense. I'm not a psychologist but it seems a little ridiculous to me to think that there is a dramatic difference in the experience.



OK.
That said, how is it that you can put apparently equal weight on two distinctly different qualities/abilities, when only one of them seems at all likely to win for you by itself?

I put equal weight between them based on documented evidence of use. Compubox stats alone will prove this. We have no documented evidence of street fights to include in this.



You're entitled to use whatever expectations you like.
I prefer a "more definitive" "outlook".

So you prefer to predict an unpredictable future? Beautiful. I'm sure you know everyone whom you'll ever have to fight. Ever.
Clairvoyance now, hmm? Meditate some lottery numbers for me, please.



That statement doesn't do much for defining "counter fighting".... not even "loosely".

I wasn't going to define it except to establish the line between counter-fighting being a seperate concept than "self-defense".

[sanjuro_ronin]

Lets make it clear, BOTH aerobic and anerobic is crucial for a well rounded fighter.
Fighting is not considered an endurance event.
Certainly MMA with its 5 min rounds is more stamina-oriented than a 3 min boxing or MT match.
Still, there is no denying the anerobic energy used in the vast majority of the techniques, particularly striking.
I do believe that trainers tend to over focus on the aerobic part, especially with road work.
You get enough aerobic conditoning with the time spend doing bag work and pad work and sparring, road work adds very little to all that.

[iron_leg_dave]

That's a hokey answer, Iron Leg.

We use different variations of Tabata (20 second on, 10 second off) intervals. For example:

1st set (20 secs): Jumping jacks

break 10 secs

2nd set (20 secs): Punch heavy bag

break 10 secs

3rd set (20 secs): Kettlebell cleans

break 10 secs

4th set (20 secs): Punch and sprawl

break 10 secs

5th set (20 secs): Knees on Heavy bag

break 10 secs

Repeat this 3 times.


Lol hokey?

What is hokey?

You can't gain stamina without training mental endurance. Most atheletes train the two simultaneously and the latter quite incidentally.

When it comes to gong fu, for centuries atleast, it has been concidered important to have more mental endurance than you should need.

It's not hokey, it's one approach.

[bakxierboxer]

Sure. Here's your proof. Go check out fights from
MMA
Kickboxing
Boxing
Muay Thai

To name a few. Then go ask a trainer or expert from any of these how important aerobic endurance is to their fighters.

The only "problem" with that is that I couldn't possibly care less about those venues.



This is getting ridiculous. You're avoiding the facts by side-stepping my points. Even if I was defining it as such, it'd still be irrelevant. My definition of a fight has nothing to do with proof of any all-anaerobic fighting styles being effective.

I'm "avoiding" nothing.
I'm simply highlighting the elements and inherent conflicts of what you write.



Find me proof of it. I'll throw ya one more definition too, testimony from a friend of a dude who did it, or a couple of low quality videos of people fighting no-name jerks, doesn't count.

By the same token, I don't know you, your friend, or his dude that did it.
That doesn't even qualify as second-hand "info", let alone "proof".



Again, you're either avoiding my points intentionally or you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I'm not sure how you get the idea that I'm "avoiding" your points when I'm "confronting" them/you with their inconsistencies.



That was an example of the uncertainty of a street fight. There are no checks and balances to make sure it is as fair as possible.

I believe that was a point that I elaborated.



You can take a video of an SPM guy destroying another guy but unlike MMA/Boxing, we have no idea what the other guy was capable of in the first place.

It would be reasonable to assume that the guy who got destroyed was "less capable" than the SPM guy who destroyed him.



Thus it is irrelevant. Even if they were both amazing, it provides no proof whatsoever as we have no idea who these people are and we've never seen them fight before.

It's not irrelevant as to seeing just who won that particular encounter.



Depends entirely on the person and the situation.

"That's my line!" (already used it twice in this thread)



Many boxers/MMA fighters throughout the years have talked about their feelings before a fight. It's usually very intense. I'm not a psychologist but it seems a little ridiculous to me to think that there is a dramatic difference in the experience.

Interesting?.... Not.



I put equal weight between them based on documented evidence of use. Compubox stats alone will prove this. We have no documented evidence of street fights to include in this.

Try hitting your next opponent with that box of stats.



So you prefer to predict an unpredictable future? Beautiful. I'm sure you know everyone whom you'll ever have to fight.

I don't believe that I've ever known anyone I've fought, although a few have decided to "make my acquaintance" or take lessons afterwards.



I wasn't going to define it except to establish the line between counter-fighting being a seperate concept than "self-defense".

Okay, although it implies giving the opponent the initiative.
Counter-attacking is a bit more specific.

[bakxierboxer]

Lets make it clear, BOTH aerobic and anerobic is crucial for a well rounded fighter.

I can easily "agree" with that.... although there might be a bit of a quibble over the relative weight that should be given to each.



Fighting is not considered an endurance event.

100% agreed.



Certainly MMA with its 5 min rounds is more stamina-oriented than a 3 min boxing or MT match.

Matters of intense interest for those who are interested by them.



Still, there is no denying the anerobic energy used in the vast majority of the techniques, particularly striking.

I'll never try to deny that.
I've been known to occasionally jabber about anaerobics over the last 40 or so years.



I do believe that trainers tend to over focus on the aerobic part, especially with road work.

There's got to be "a reason" they do that.... I'm not sure it's a good one.



You get enough aerobic conditoning with the time spend doing bag work and pad work and sparring, road work adds very little to all that.

Agreed.

[sanjuro_ronin]

We have to be specific in our training and as such, a person training for 3 x 5 minute rounds trains with a more aerobic context, a person training for 2-3 min rounds will probably have a well balanced anerobic/aerobic ratio, whereas someone training to end a fight in as quick as possible manner must focus on explosive power and anerobic conditioning.

HIIT is ideal for the short burst fighter and in a modified way for the moderate and endurance fighter too.
Its just the ratio that changes in the training depending of the specific goals in mind.

[cjurakpt]

We have to be specific in our training and as such, a person training for 3 x 5 minute rounds trains with a more aerobic context, a person training for 2-3 min rounds will probably have a well balanced anerobic/aerobic ratio, whereas someone training to end a fight in as quick as possible manner must focus on explosive power and anerobic conditioning.

HIIT is ideal for the short burst fighter and in a modified way for the moderate and endurance fighter too.
Its just the ratio that changes in the training depending of the specific goals in mind.

if you consider why HIIT "works", it seems to have to do with the fact that it requires the physiology to work in a non-habituating capacity; in other words, if you do a 3 mile run, assuming you are capable of it, after a certain point, the cardiorespiratory system "gets" what is happening, and acclimates; once it does this, in a way, the system has become more efficient, it can expend less energy to achieve the desired outcome - it's kinda like the difference in gas use accelerating up to 60 and then maintianing it at 60; by doing HIIT, you are never allowing for habituation, you are "forcing" the system to "improvise" each time; by analogy, when doing neuromuscular re-ed work with clients, I subjectively find that by keeping the number of reps low (3-5 for kids, 8-12 for adults), whatever we are doing doesn't loose it's edge, so to speak: it maintains a certain degree of "newness", which is what forces the system to actively learn each time as opposed to relying on some sort of "recall" (assuming the task is neither too hard or too easy to begin with, of course) - once the system understands what it is doing, it can start to use other compensatory patterns to cut corners; in a way, this approach can be tiring because of the degree of mental focus required, and as such it's a good way to simulate the reality of unpredictable stressors that one may encounter in the "real world"

[JGTevo]

The only "problem" with that is that I couldn't possibly care less about those venues.

Then you're ignoring the only comparable evidence out there.



I'm "avoiding" nothing.
I'm simply highlighting the elements and inherent conflicts of what you write.

Such conflicts are entirely irrelevant to the main argument.



By the same token, I don't know you, your friend, or his dude that did it.
That doesn't even qualify as second-hand "info", let alone "proof".

The credibility and experience of the people involved is important when it comes to scientific data, whether you know these people or not. They have documented credentials.



I'm not sure how you get the idea that I'm "avoiding" your points when I'm "confronting" them/you with their inconsistencies.

It's basically like you're changing the entirety of the subject to focus on misinterpretations of less important points, instead of the major point which I made - Which was that fighting is both an aerobic and anaerobic exercise.



It would be reasonable to assume that the guy who got destroyed was "less capable" than the SPM guy who destroyed him.

When it comes to style-vs-style, all things being equal, the technique wins out. Realistically all things cannot be equal, but one of the things competitions do, is try to make it as equal as possible - which usually makes it so that the better technique wins out.



It's not irrelevant as to seeing just who won that particular encounter.

Without factual data for comparison, it is not yet relevant.



Interesting?.... Not.

Then don't respond to it?



Try hitting your next opponent with that box of stats.

The statistics are a great representation of how a boxing match works. When you factor in the amount of punches per three minute round, you get a good idea of how much time is spent not punching. It's scientific data to assess how much of boxing is anaerobic.

You should be very concerned with the scientific method, if you're a teacher or trainer in the martial arts.



I don't believe that I've ever known anyone I've fought, although a few have decided to "make my acquaintance" or take lessons afterwards.

Oh geez, you're just a badass aren't you. :rolleyes:
Then how exactly is the "More definitive" "outlook" possible, when you don't prepare for the worst possible opponent you can face?

[Mr Punch]

if you consider why HIIT "works"...Interesting! Is there any evidence to suggest this would work with skills too? It would explain why I find short combo punching a lot more satisfying (and I suspect useful) than repeating the same punch 100 times, and why Japanese baseball players suck when they practise again and again and again and again and again...

[bakxierboxer]

The only "problem" with that is that I couldn't possibly care less about those venues.

Then you're ignoring the only comparable evidence out there.

YOU think they're "comparable", I do not.



I'm "avoiding" nothing.
I'm simply highlighting the elements and inherent conflicts of what you write.

Such conflicts are entirely irrelevant to the main argument.

Not when they're the sum total of your so-called "argument".
This "discussion" is an "argument" only in the sense that we disagree.
It's far from being anything at all like a logical argument or course of reasoning.




By the same token, I don't know you, your friend, or his dude that did it. That doesn't even qualify as second-hand "info", let alone "proof".

The credibility and experience of the people involved is important when it comes to scientific data, whether you know these people or not. They have documented credentials.

Which you haven't presented.




I'm not sure how you get the idea that I'm "avoiding" your points when I'm "confronting" them/you with their inconsistencies.

It's basically like you're changing the entirety of the subject to focus on misinterpretations of less important points, instead of the major point which I made - Which was that fighting is both an aerobic and anaerobic exercise.

"You can't have it both ways!"




It would be reasonable to assume that the guy who got destroyed was "less capable" than the SPM guy who destroyed him.

When it comes to style-vs-style, all things being equal, the technique wins out. Realistically all things cannot be equal, but one of the things competitions do, is try to make it as equal as possible - which usually makes it so that the better technique wins out.

?????
OTOH, perhaps said "better technique" is what might actually make such a match unequal?




It's not irrelevant as to seeing just who won that particular encounter.

Without factual data for comparison, it is not yet relevant.

One winner, one loser.... those look like "facts" to me.




Interesting?.... Not.

Then don't respond to it?

Best thing you've said to this point.
I think I'll take you up on it.




Try hitting your next opponent with that box of stats.

The statistics are a great representation of how a boxing match works. When you factor in the amount of punches per three minute round, you get a good idea of how much time is spent not punching. It's scientific data to assess how much of boxing is anaerobic.

... and seemingly provides all the justification you're looking for to support your position(s).



You should be very concerned with the scientific method, if you're a teacher or trainer in the martial arts.

Empiricism can do quite a bit in terms of knowing what to teach.




I don't believe that I've ever known anyone I've fought, although a few have decided to "make my acquaintance" or take lessons afterwards.

Oh geez, you're just a badass aren't you.

I don't think I've ever said or inferred that.
As a matter of fact, if I wasn't a relatively agreeable sort, that kind of thing wouldn't happen.



Then how exactly is the "More definitive" "outlook" possible, when you don't prepare for the worst possible opponent you can face?

I think you meant the "toughest" or "best" opponent.....
"SOP" for folks training in MA.... or it used to be.

[bakxierboxer]

Originally Posted by JGTevo
I have experience in Jook Lum SPM and I understand how much is anaerobic.

and


However when it comes to fighting, it's one of those systems untested in modern times.

Who'd you learn Jook Lum SPM from?

You never did answer that.......

[JGTevo]

YOU think they're "comparable", I do not

Thats cool. You can live in ignorance. You're ignoring the only scientifically comparable evidence available. Whether I think they're comparable or not is irrelevant. MMA is Fighting, with rules. It's comparable right there. The degree to which it can be compared is subjective, but it is comparable.



Not when they're the sum total of your so-called "argument".

Fortunately they're not.



Which you haven't presented.

Do I really need to? Organizations like the UFC, people with credentials who put together fights who have been in the business of putting together fights for decades... Are you honestly suggesting that the reputation alone does not give them credibility?



OTOH, perhaps said "better technique" is what might actually make such a match unequal?

Then that would go toward proving the effectiveness of that technique... which is what the UFC used to be about, to see what the best "Style" Is. Which is a great proving ground for SPM.



One winner, one loser.... those look like "facts" to me.

Those "Facts" don't say anything about the effectiveness of any technique or idea given the multitude of factors that could influence the match. Size, Strength, Experience. Any style can win against any style in a non-professional enviorment.

The outcome of a match is not enough to come to any conclusion about how effective a style is.



... and seemingly provides all the justification you're looking for to support your position(s).

It's not all, but it's one point, backed up my scientific data, to back up my position.



Empiricism can do quite a bit in terms of knowing what to teach.

It's incredibly limited to base that entirely on your own experiences.



I don't think I've ever said or inferred that.
As a matter of fact, if I wasn't a relatively agreeable sort, that kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Right, so have you ever lost a fight?



I think you meant the "toughest" or "best" opponent.....
"SOP" for folks training in MA.... or it used to be.

Arguing semantics now? :rolleyes:



You never did answer that.......

I'd rather not. The people on this forum who know me personally in r/l, know who my teachers are/were. I've had one teacher in Jook Lum SPM and trained with two others informally... but I have a lot of strong opinions and I'm a fairly abrasive person so in respect to them, I'd rather they not be named. To be fair, my experience in it is incomplete as I had to stop training, but I did train for a significant amount of time, and I was very impressed with the level of the instructors I've trained with... But even if I train something and I use it in a real fight I still will reserve my judgement for when I see it tested, or I personally test it, more thoroughly. As of now it's theoretical for me and I think it has some great theories, but I also train what has been proven to work...

[cjurakpt]

Interesting! Is there any evidence to suggest this would work with skills too? It would explain why I find short combo punching a lot more satisfying (and I suspect useful) than repeating the same punch 100 times, and why Japanese baseball players suck when they practise again and again and again and again and again...

well, for skill acquisition specifically, there is a great deal of research in the motor learning literature regarding practice schedules: duration, intensity, frequency, scheduling, etc.; one general trend that seems to have emerged (and, TBH, I think so-called "common sense" would tell you this anyway), that when presented with, say, 3 different novel motor tasks, practicing them one at a time for, say 25 trials each (called "blocked" practice), as opposed to practicing 75 trials of all 3 mixed up ("random", gets you better at each one initially, but the ability to retain the skill say a week later, as well as to extrapolate onto another novel similar skill (and a lot of debate exists as to what constitutes the parameters of similarity, of course) is better for "random" learners;
now, this also needs to be considered in context of "abstract' versus "real-world" skills: many of these studies use highly abstract skills, like moving a cursor through a maze or some-such; not surprisingly, when the studies used 'real world" skills, the findings were often not nearly as neat or statistically significant, and a lot of the discussions at the end revolved around how complex motor skill acquisition varied greatly from one person to the next, and it was often hard to explain why this was the case (although it is something that intuitively we understand); one possibility was the notion of contextual interference, which suggests that environmental parameters are at least as important as those of the skill itself; finally, some researchers suggest that at the very beginning, blocked-like practice is necessary to help people "get the idea" of the movement, but as soon as this has occurred, to immediately switch to random practice, and increase the degree of contextual interference as soon as possible to as high a level as possible without it becoming too much

again, i don't think that there is anything in the above that is all that revolutionary, just that the research appears to confirm what good coaches seem to come up with instinctively...

[bakxierboxer]

Thats cool. You can live in ignorance. You're ignoring the only scientifically comparable evidence available. Whether I think they're comparable or not is irrelevant. MMA is Fighting, with rules. It's comparable right there. The degree to which it can be compared is subjective, but it is comparable.


Ummmm.... you can't mix "scientific" with "subjective".

Scientific evidence is/must-be "objective".... real, hard, physical evidence/substance.

"Subjective" means "in your mind" and not having anything to do with "reality".



Do I really need to? Organizations like the UFC, people with credentials who put together fights who have been in the business of putting together fights for decades... Are you honestly suggesting that the reputation alone does not give them credibility?

All anyone needs to do to "judge" them is to watch a match.
A minute or two while channel-surfing is usually more than enough to show that there's been no substantial change in any of them.
By the way, a "reputation" is also "subjective", and is usually founded on the (subjective) opinions of the "general public".



It's not all, but it's one point, backed up my scientific data, to back up my position.

I contend that your "position" is an "opinion".



It's incredibly limited to base that entirely on your own experiences.

My experiences added to what I've garnered from the experiential knowledge of my teachers.



Right, so have you ever lost a fight?

Yes.
Have you?



Arguing semantics now? :rolleyes:

"Semantics" is not a dirty word.
At its base, it is concerned with the meaning of words.
"Higher level" semantics gets into phrases, symbols, etc.



I'd rather not. The people on this forum who know me personally in r/l, know who my teachers are/were. I've had one teacher in Jook Lum SPM and trained with two others informally...

All of whom are still without a name.



but I have a lot of strong opinions

That much is obvious.
Their foundations don't seem to be that strong.



I'm a fairly abrasive person

Not particularly.... just remarkably stubborn in sticking to your opinions.


so in respect to them, I'd rather they not be named. To be fair, my experience in it is incomplete as I had to stop training, but I did train for a significant amount of time, and I was very impressed with the level of the instructors I've trained with...

That's nice of you.
By the way, just what do you consider to be "a significant amount of time"?



But even if I train something and I use it in a real fight I still will reserve my judgement for when I see it tested, or I personally test it, more thoroughly.

A technique either works, or it doesn't.
Either result is "grist for the mill".



As of now it's theoretical for me and I think it has some great theories, but I also train what has been proven to work...

"Theoretical" means "not practical" or "speculative".
Your additional wording does nothing at all to further anything you've said to this point.

I think I'm going to take you up on your earlier suggestion and simply ignore you.
(aside from looking to see what you consider "a significant amount of time")

[JGTevo]

Ummmm.... you can't mix "scientific" with "subjective".

Without sufficient scientific evidence you have to. There are several aspects of MMA which are undeniably similar to real fighting. Others, it can be argued for or against.



I contend that your "position" is an "opinion".

Not saying it isn't. My original position was that fighting was both anaerobic and aerobic. Which is a fact. Everything since then has been my opinion on how important it is, based on the only scientifically comparable evidence(MMA, Boxing, Recorded Matches, Trainer/Fighter Experiences).



Yes.
Have you?

Absolutely, who hasn't? Losing helps us grow.



"Semantics" is not a dirty word.
At its base, it is concerned with the meaning of words.
"Higher level" semantics gets into phrases, symbols, etc.

I understand the definition, I just didn't see the point in bringing it up.



That much is obvious.
Their foundations don't seem to be that strong.

In your opinion.



That's nice of you.
By the way, just what do you consider to be "a significant amount of time"?

Two years.



A technique either works, or it doesn't.
Either result is "grist for the mill".

Techniques have a tendency to work incredibly well in controlled situations.

[bakxierboxer]

Without sufficient scientific evidence you have to.

Actually, what you have is "insufficient evidence" to make any conclusion other than that you don't have enough evidence.



Not saying it isn't. My original position was that fighting was both anaerobic and aerobic. Which is a fact. Everything since then has been my opinion on how important it is....

Versus my opinion.
The difference is in the relative importance and percentage of use.



Absolutely, who hasn't? Losing helps us grow.

If that "growth" is to correct whatever deficiencies led to the loss.



I understand the definition, I just didn't see the point in bringing it up.

Something called "understanding".... specifically applied as to what we read and write.



In your opinion.

We've all got those.




Two years.

Ok... now I know what you think is significant.
That's one answer.



Techniques have a tendency to work incredibly well in controlled situations.

The general idea of learning a style is to learn to make it work "as needed".
In some respects, this means learning to control the situation.

NOW I can put you on "Ignore".

[JGTevo]

Ahh, bakxierboxer, I have never in my life had anyone who argued about nothing before. You could've brought one piece of scientific evidence to support your points, but you have none.



Actually, what you have is "insufficient evidence" to make any conclusion other than that you don't have enough evidence.

That'd be true if we were talking about a single conclusion. The comparison between fighting and MMA is comprised of multiple conclusions, all of which are in support of fighting being equally aerobic and anaerobic.



Versus my opinion.
The difference is in the relative importance and percentage of use.

Yep.



If that "growth" is to correct whatever deficiencies led to the loss.

I'd suggest you re-register in the forums under the name, "Mr. Obvious".



Something called "understanding".... specifically applied as to what we read and write.

Are you trying to make people who read this thread understand, or me? I've understood all of the blatantly obvious points you've brought up.

I could post the definition of "Understanding", and it'd have as much relevance to this discussion, which is none when you're stating something someone already knows or should know.



We've all got those.

Really?!



The general idea of learning a style is to learn to make it work "as needed".
In some respects, this means learning to control the situation.

Which is completely different from the "Controlled Situation" I spoke of. Outside in the real world, there are variables beyond your control. In the gym, these variables do not exist.



NOW I can put you on "Ignore".

:confused: Then why even bother to respond in the first place? Just to satisfy your ego?

[sanjuro_ronin]

if you consider why HIIT "works", it seems to have to do with the fact that it requires the physiology to work in a non-habituating capacity; in other words, if you do a 3 mile run, assuming you are capable of it, after a certain point, the cardiorespiratory system "gets" what is happening, and acclimates; once it does this, in a way, the system has become more efficient, it can expend less energy to achieve the desired outcome - it's kinda like the difference in gas use accelerating up to 60 and then maintianing it at 60; by doing HIIT, you are never allowing for habituation, you are "forcing" the system to "improvise" each time; by analogy, when doing neuromuscular re-ed work with clients, I subjectively find that by keeping the number of reps low (3-5 for kids, 8-12 for adults), whatever we are doing doesn't loose it's edge, so to speak: it maintains a certain degree of "newness", which is what forces the system to actively learn each time as opposed to relying on some sort of "recall" (assuming the task is neither too hard or too easy to begin with, of course) - once the system understands what it is doing, it can start to use other compensatory patterns to cut corners; in a way, this approach can be tiring because of the degree of mental focus required, and as such it's a good way to simulate the reality of unpredictable stressors that one may encounter in the "real world"

Absolutely correct, though most people tend to "pace" their HIIT.
Everyone talks about the Tabata protocol because its the one that got all those awesome results, yet very few people do HIIT in that method.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Interesting! Is there any evidence to suggest this would work with skills too? It would explain why I find short combo punching a lot more satisfying (and I suspect useful) than repeating the same punch 100 times, and why Japanese baseball players suck when they practise again and again and again and again and again...

It depends on what you are working for, long term or short term retention.
If you are looking for short term retention then doing "100's of reps over a short period" works great, but if you are looking for long term retention then "consistencty over time" is the key with the actual quantity not matter all that much.

[IronFist]

I didn't read any replies in this thread so maybe this has been said already.

If you want increased endurance in an event, you should train in ways that simulate that event.

For example, if you want more endurance for fighting, don't train to run 10 miles, because fighting takes way more energy than running does. You'll increase the amount you can run, but you won't have any more endurance in your fight.

Similarly, if someone could run 5 miles but wanted to run 10, they wouldn't train by sprinting and jumping rope, because those don't approximate distance running.

If you want more endurance for fighting, train by fighting/sparring or if you can't, train buy jumping rope or doing Kettlebell snatches or something that approximates the energy usage that you find in fighting.

Not trying to tell you what to do, just trying to save you from wasting your time.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I didn't read any replies in this thread so maybe this has been said already.

If you want increased endurance in an event, you should train in ways that simulate that event.

For example, if you want more endurance for fighting, don't train to run 10 miles, because fighting takes way more energy than running does. You'll increase the amount you can run, but you won't have any more endurance in your fight.

Similarly, if someone could run 5 miles but wanted to run 10, they wouldn't train by sprinting and jumping rope, because those don't approximate distance running.

If you want more endurance for fighting, train by fighting/sparring or if you can't, train buy jumping rope or doing Kettlebell snatches or something that approximates the energy usage that you find in fighting.

Not trying to tell you what to do, just trying to save you from wasting your time.

The Law of Specificty rules, quite correct.

[JGTevo]

You'll increase the amount you can run, but you won't have any more endurance in your fight.

That's actually not entirely correct. If you go back through the threda, bakxierboxer posted a quote explaining that aerobic endurance contributes to anaerobic endurance as well.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's actually not entirely correct. If you go back through the threda, bakxierboxer posted a quote explaining that aerobic endurance contributes to anaerobic endurance as well.

There is always some cross over, form one way or another, it just depends on what you think is acceptable for the time put in.

[SevenStar]

last night I had a discussion with my student, Pan.(Pan trains Muay Chaya and Muay Boran in Thailand, and won his first MMA event there). He brought up a very intersting point.
He said that running is not productive cardio for a fighter. Better to do sports specific such as bagwork.
It makes sense to me,
what are your thoughts?
-although I enjoy my runs. I do a mile warm-up and then six-eight sprints, and then a cool-down.
tabatas look awesome. I will work those into my training.


fighting is about 80% anaerobic, which is very likely why he said that. In order to maximize fighting efficiency, you are better served doing anaerobic training. running is important for the 20%, but it doesn't have to be running. Take frank shamrock, for example. he doesn't run anymore, I hear; he uses an eliptical machine.

[SevenStar]

That's actually not entirely correct. If you go back through the threda, bakxierboxer posted a quote explaining that aerobic endurance contributes to anaerobic endurance as well.

As iron stated, it's not specific. biking increases endurance, but marathoners don't train by biking. Why not?

[SevenStar]

The best way to achieve physical stamina is to work on mental endurance I think.

In traditional gong fu, there are lot's of ways we work on improving our mental endurance. The most common is standing postures, and repative training of techniques. These methods naturally build mental endurance, particularly if your intention is to do so.

When you run, if your doing standing post, you should feel like even though your body is giving out, you have this invisible mental strength that allows you, even encourages you to carry on as long as you will.

I know that I could run long enough to really hurt myself, and keep running. When I have a hard labor day of work, I really have to watch myself. I would definately attribute this quality to standing post.


dude... really? ummm.... no.

Don't get me wrong, visualization is a powerful tool, so is mental training. I think it is a necessity in conjunction with physical training, however by itself, it is not sufficient for endurance gains, especially from the perspective of an athlete.

We can easily test that though... keep doing your standing post every day. keep doing kung fu for an hour per day. enter a marathon and see how many of those 26 miles you last. Anyone can run past the point of pain - I don't really attribute that to any special mental training, it's called heart. plenty of people have that with no training at all. But that only goes so far.

[JGTevo]

Take frank shamrock, for example. he doesn't run anymore, I hear; he uses an eliptical machine.

Look at Frank Shamrock's last fight, against Cung Le. Thats why he doesn't run anymore. The guy has a bad knee, or maybe bad knees. He's no doubt suffered knee injuries in the past. I'm in a similar boat. After my first knee injury I couldn't run for an entire year.



As iron stated, it's not specific. biking increases endurance, but marathoners don't train by biking. Why not?

Because they're already doing an intensive aerobic exercise(running). Biking won't increase it any more than running. It's not like biking gives them some kind of seperate endurance gain that they can only gain from that.

On the other hand, anaerobic endurance is supplemented by aerobic endurance. Aerobic endurance is also very useful when moving, feinting, slipping/weaving, blocking/deflecting(in some cases its anaerobic), and in training when you are drilling these things thousands of times.