Which is better for martial artist, calisthenics or weight training?

[premier]

I've heard a lot of people saying calisthenics are the way to go, but a lot of people here say we should do weight training? So which one is it? and could someone explain how the results of these two training methods differ?


premier

[Ford Prefect]

combo

[Repulsive Monkey]

This has to be a joke question right???? The obvious answer is of course neither of them. If you practice a legitimate and reputable art then there is no need whatsoever for any other those two unrelated practices. Either the art you practice is defeicient or you're not practising it right!

[premier]

Yes. I can see why you call yourself repulsive. Thanks for your reply.


premier

[IronFist]

Well, it depends on what you mean by "calisthenics." But, why not do both? No one says you have to pick.

Of course, if I had to pick, I would pick weight lifting, because if you're talking cardio you should get enough of that from your MA and form practice.

Iron

[premier]

Wasn't calisthenics supposed to be body weight exercises like pull ups etc? Basically the Matt Furey approach.

[anerlich]

premier, nice comeback.;)

Arguably, KF forms and solo drills are specialised forms of calisthenics.

Tae-bo certainly is :D

Larger weapons and those funny rings some guys put around their arms when practising are arguably forms of weight training.

There are few MA's who don't do some form of warm up calisthenics or specific stretching exercises.

I've not met a good MA teacher yet who didn't advocate some form of supplementary training.

Simplistically, weights are better for sheer strength, calisthenics for muscular endurance, though there is a large amount of overlap. You could argue that pullups and dips are weight training exercises rather than calisthenics and vice versa, and even if they are calisthenics you can put on a weighted belt and make them into a lifting exercise.

Read as much as you can about exercise physiology and anatomy, and design a progam that suits your specific goals. Ask people you know in Real Life who know about this stuff.

Presumably you want to become a better MA and not a bodybuilder, powerlifter, or marathon runner - though it's easy to lose focus if you're not careful.

You could try a month of weights, then a month of calisthenics and see which works better for you. Maybe you could also keep that schedule, or mix the two up.

Everyone is different, the best way to find out what works for you is to experiment.

[Repulsive Monkey]

I apologise for being a bit rough initially, but I have to repeat myself here, if you're art doesn't do all the things you need then it may be an incomplete art. However it also depends on what it is you want? Do you want the art or do you want to build big muscles?

[Ford Prefect]

Sorry, Monkey, but I've yet to see an art that gives me the pressing power of a 300 lbs bench or the explosiveness of a 250 lbs snatch. Supplemental strength training can and will add to your art.

[Paul]

all else being equal, who would you rather face? someone with physical strength and size or someone who is physically weak?

I lift weights and do kung fu. Most days that I go to class, I lift weights at the school before doing kung fu.

I agree with Ford.

[scotty1]

So do I. A good mix of cal. and weights will give you strength and endurance. I also run for my cardio.

If I could spend all day every day doing my KF then maybe I wouldn't need any supplementary training.

[Robinf]

I'll agree with Repulsive on this one. If you practice correctly, the martial art should be enough to keep you fit and make you good at your martial art.

However, if you want to go beyond that, or if you want faster results from your martial art, then I'd go with weight training. Even just doing stances or even forms with weights in your hands or around your wrists and ankles will help you improve faster and probably more than just doing the martial art itself.

Robin

[ElPietro]

Martial arts will not increase your strength. If you were weak to start i may help a bit, but it will only help you cardiovascularly.

There are many ways to weight train so saying you will get big is a very ignorant thing to say. Even training for size will not work if your diet is such that your body has nothing to grow with.

Strength training with heavy weight and low reps will not leave you very sore, will not lead to a great amount of muscle hypertrophy, and will lead to a stronger skeleton, dense bones, better joints, and will prevent many debilitating effects of old age.

Without heavy stress you cannot strengthen your bone and skeletal system.

Everything has it's purpose, martial arts isn't the answer to every question in the universe. Sorry to disappoint you.

[xiong]

I'm not sure that some of the things being argued here aren't just different terms for the same thing.

If you really think about it doing a form is just a really complicated calisthenic routine. So you can develop strength just from doing your forms. Some people like to breakdown forms and do certain sections repeatedly. And alot of Chi Gong exercises seem to be like body weight/calisthenic exercises.

I personally like to go with the muscle endurance/functional strength concepts ala Matt Furey. This is because I have little hope of becoming a big muscle guy and I would prefer to be able to do some of the flips and handstands in my style that benching 300lbs is never going to help me with.

Thats just my preference. I think the most important thing is what program is going to help you make progress towards your goals. For me working on bodyweight exercises using MA techniques seems to be the way to improve my MA.

[ElPietro]

Oh and robin I will disagree with you on this...fit can be defined many ways and isn't a good way to define things.

I look at marathon runners who can run forever without getting to tired and think they are diseased because of their lack of strength and absence of any muscle mass. That is because they are not what I consider ideal. Everyone has their own outlook so dependant on your goals there is no true answer to what is the best way to train.

[hkphooey]

i'm down with EP on this one for sure...

can you practice MA exclusively and become a great martial artist?? of course. but you can certainly enhance your abilities with strength and endurance training, and therefore become a better martial artist. that is what sports science is all about. this is not to say that stength and flexibility issues don't crop up on both side of the argument, but you can certainly design your routine to maximize what's important to YOU and YOUR needs.

that's the beauty of the system... =)

premier...you can easily incorporate the two. it's isn't (nor should it be) an either/or issue... mr fury has some excellent points, and i enjoy his work, but he is not the "end all" of fitness information. in fact, sometimes his premises are extremely questionable. besides, there's a lot of bioindividuality out there. have you seen that guy?? his body type is NOTHING like mine.

[Robinf]

ElPietro,

Not sure I understand where your disagreement is. Fit in the broadest general sense is being the proper weight, blood pressure, etc. for your particular body. That's the definition I was using.

Also, if you practice your martial art, you are doing bodyweight exercises. Some forms, at least in my style, have you go into a pushup position then push yourself up and turn over in the air to land again in a push up. You're telling me that no matter how much I practice this one, I won't become physically stronger? Also, many forms go from a low stance and go up into a high stance and then back into a low stance. So this won't strengthen my legs at all? Not to mention the time spent in the low stances--that won't strengthen my legs? There are also turning and/or twisting kicks and punches--I see a bit of abdominal work in this. Not to mention some styles have specialty techniques like kipup, iron bridge from standing with no hands, etc.. Practicing these won't strengthen a person?

Are you saying it's impossible to get stronger without using weights?

Robin

[premier]

Just to clarify things a bit. As a lot of you already realised, when I talk about weight training, I'm not talking about bodybuilding. More like maximum strength training. To be honest this thread is more like Tsatsouline vs. Furey. Just didn't want to bring it up like that.

So you're saying these two should be combined? Does these two develope different kind of power? like calisthenics muscle endurance and weight training maximum strength or explosive strength?

Repulsive monkey

I know what you mean. It's just that I felt you were insulting me and my style on your first reply. Anyway, I know I can be pretty **** good by just practising my style. I get the speed, explosiveness and endurance by doing my forms. Weapon forms and Dummy forms are great conditioning tools. But I think some kind of supplement training can make me even better.


premier

[Ford Prefect]

Robin,

It's quite possible to get stronger without using weights. However is is impossible to get as strong without using weights as using weights. Almost anybody with enough practice will be able to do 15+ pull-ups, one-arm push-ups, one-legged squats, etc etc. A lot of these acrobatic type feats have more to do with balance and control rather than raw strength. The same can not be said about squatting 400 lbs, benching 300 lbs, etc. You need to have a well thought out training plan and dedication in order to make these numbers. (btw, these are nothing special in the grand scheme of things)

Training somebody who can do the acrobatic type feats to lift as much weight as a comparably sized powerlifter would take quite a long time. Training a power lifter to perform these acrobatic types feat would for the most part be a lot easier.

[Ford Prefect]

Premier,

Just combine the two. Two week cycles is what the doctor ordered. I used to (and am starting again next week) do two weeks of bodyweight/k'bell and two weeks of PTP with great results. I only stopped because I wanted to bulk up a bit. Now that I gained near 30 lbs, I'm back to my old way. PTP is two weeks of Snatching, DL'ing, Benching, and weighted pulls. Bodyweight is two weeks of one-arm push-ups, one-arm pull-ups, pistols, furey'ish calesthenics, and dumbell snatches.

[Braden]

Ford - Aren't you begging the question about what 'strength' actually is? And isn't this at the heart of the whole debate?

As a somewhat related aside, I disagree STRONGLY with your assertion that gains in power lifting can transmit easily to gains in what you call acrobatic feats. The winners of the world's strongest men competitions consistently are unable to hang dead from a bar for over a couple seconds, let alone do 20 one-arm pull-ups. And it would be very, VERY difficult to get them to the point where this isn't true - and would involve alot of undoing what made them win the raw power contests.

[Ford Prefect]

Braden,

Those guys aren't "power lifters" and I purposely said " for the most part be a lot easier" because I knew somebody would bring 300+ lbs strong men. Grab a 200 lbs guy that can bench 500+, Squat 700+, and Dead 600+ and I guarantee he could learn to do acrobatic/bodyweight stuff a whole lot easier than a 200 lbs acrobat could develop the strength to lift all those poundages. I used to do all bodyweight stuff, but once I started splitting time with powerlifting, the difficult gymnastics-type movements were so much easier.

[Braden]

Fair enough. I don't disagree with you - I have also found significant advances made to my bodyweight exercises from weighted training (and vice versa).

My main problem is how someone defines strength. If person A can press twice as much as person B, but do half as many pull-ups, which one is stronger? An underlying assumption in your argument seems to be that person A is stronger. But I'm not sure that this is valid, objectively.

I don't see how strength can be defined, except situationally. Which means the real answer is that you need to define specific goals, and train accordingly. But of course, everyone knew that. ;)

[ElPietro]

Robin sure you can get stronger using your own bodyweight. But for how long? Without being able to increase the weight where will your progress come from?

Imagine someone doing bench press using 100lbs. It's difficult at first and he feels weak, and after a month it's easier and he can do a few sets of 10. After a year the weight is relatively easy to handle and he can do sets of 20. But there will be a threshold to that. After a while it would be the same thing day in and day out...5 sets of 20 or whatever it would be and no difference at all. Same with using your body. You can only go so far because the amount of weight you have to use is fixed.

The reason guys in strong man comps can't sit there and hang off a bar is because they have anaerobic strength. And hanging of the bar would be using their muscles in a manner in which it hasn't been trained for. Just as you can hang off a bar for maybe a minute, but couldn't deadlift 700lbs. You have to find a happy medium and in my opinion bodyweight exercises only isn't the answer.

If people took some time to research different forms of weight training instead of spouting off myths and misconceptions they might realize that there is more to weight training than what they see on TV.

[Braden]

EP - Just to clarify, I wasn't badmouthing weight training. As an aside, I'm not sure the strongman hanging issue is mater of anaerobic vs. aerobic. As another aside, I can hang off a bar for much, much longer than a minute; as, I hope, can anyone else interested in fitness.

[ElPietro]

Originally posted by Braden
I'm not sure the strongman hanging issue is mater of anaerobic vs. aerobic.

Ok, so what is it an issue of then?

[Mr. Nemo]

"If person A can press twice as much as person B, but do half as many pull-ups, which one is stronger?"

well....a push-up is a pulling motion, and a press is a pressing motion, so they're completely different things. A better comparison would be bench press vs. pullups or dips.

I think the most common definition of "strength" is one rep maximum for a particular motion. If person A can bench more than person B, but person B can do more one-arm pushups than person A, I would say that person A is stronger, but person B has more muscular endurance.

In addition, explosive power from olympic-style lifts or many different kettlebell lifts translate very well to acrobatic-style movements. The same is true of powerlifting lifts (bench, squat, deadlift). Big squatters have very impressive vertical jumps, and can run 10m faster than sprinters.

[Paul]

a push-up is a pulling motion

Is not. haha.

[Braden]

EP - strength-for-the-task to body mass ratio.

Nemo - you misread what you quoted.

But I think you either missed my point or you agree with it. To give another example that maybe expresses the argument more clearly - if you benchpress more, longer than I can, but I can 'fly' more, longer than you can - which one of us has the stronger chest?

My point is only that strength must be defined situationally.

When you guys argue the way you have, you seem to be throwing out things like 'balance' and 'coordination' as outside of strength. If this is the way you feel, and you really want to get right down to isolating the contractile strength of a muscle, then strength is defined by the diameter of a muscule and the % of it's fibers brought to bear on a given task. This is basic physiology. Note that this is still situational, but nonetheless - it's not a conclusion that I think you will accept - do you really want to state that you can measure 'strength' by measuring the size of someone's muscles? If you do not accept this definition - then what IS strength, what are the other factors contributing to 'strength' other than contractile ability of a single muscle. Very clearly, functional strength is a complex variable which does in fact involve things like balance and coordination - to throw them to the wind as unrelated is silly, and as soon as you accept them in your functional definition of strength, these 'acrobatic feats' become just as meaningfull as powerlifting feats. Note again that I'm not putting down lifting, I said 'just as meaningfull', not less so. I'm sticking by my 'situational definition' approach, which is NOT a 'bodyweight exercises are better' approach.

You reject examples of the 'big guys' who win strongmen contests, even though by powerlifting standards, they're the champions (even if you want to put them outside of the 'powerlifter' category, they're still the ones lifting the most). You suggest that they are extremes. But it's not like one rule describes people over 350lbs, and another rule describes people under. It's clearly a continuum. And I do not understand how you can reduce the argument to one of endurance VS power. If a rockclimber can lift his bodyweight effortlessly with the last two joints of the fingers of one hand, and a power lifter cannot do a single one-arm chin-up - how can you possibly argue that the power lifter is stronger, but has less endurance? The only possible way to argue this would be to suggest that the PLs endurance is so low, that he craps out before a single rep of the task is done. But this is an absurd argument. The RCer could just as easily say HIS endurance is so low, it craps out before a single rep of the PLers choice task. You could argue both ways. Which one is stronger?

Neither. Strength isn't an absolute.

[ElPietro]

Braden most of what you say is true, albeit obvious. I for one do not like to compare strength unless in a controlled manner, so the same circumstances with the same weight, etc.

Your example can be looked at in a couple ways with regards to hanging from a bar. Yes the bodyweight is different for a skinny endurance trained athlete versus a powerlifter, and that is a factor. But if we used relative weight by the size of the athlete the result would be the same, as the powerlifter has less oxidative function and therefore would run out of gas sooner. Strength can be defined many ways and there probably is no true way to say this person is stronger unless of course in each specific situation.

However, the point of this thread is calisthenics versus weight training, and I will just make this one point that almost anything that can be done using calisthenics can be done better using weight training. Speed can be developed in the gym, functional strength can be developed using weights, power is developed using weights, flexibility can be developed in the gym...pretty much anything you'd need. Sure a set of dumbells won't teach you how to punch but that's not the issue and practical training must be treated separately.

Training in a gym has many benefits and can have a variety of results. The way you train must be tailored to your own goals. If you are a martial artist and power and speed are your goals then there are methods for that. If endurance is your goal that's fine, or if you simply want to grow your muscles and be able to lift more weight that's another goal. But each goal represents a different form of training, and whether you train one way or a combination of all is up to your own personal goals. If you just want to be someone who's good at doing the forms of your martial arts then practicing forms should probably make up the majority of your training...but if there are parts where you are weak and require strength, the use of weights can aid you in making those parts easier and thus enabling you to be more fluid.

So as my conclusion, weight training is definitely an aid to any martial arts training, along with pretty much any other training you could possibly mention. How many sports do you see today where some form of resistance training isn't prescribed?

[Braden]

Odd that you agreed with my albeit obvious argument, then completely disagree with it: "and I will just make this one point that almost anything that can be done using calisthenics can be done better using weight training."

[jun_erh]

They do weight training at Shaolin. See the film "Abbot Hai Teng of Shaolin". Weight lifting is great but if you get too bulky you won't be as fast. This may or may not be important for you.

[Mr. Nemo]

Ack....I meant pullups, not pushups, and the second part of the sentence I meant....aw hell, you know what I meant.

Braden: yes, strength must be defined by a specific motion, but I still define "strength" by a one-rep maximum for a particular lift. In your example, the guy that can press more has a stronger press, while the guy that can fly more has a stronger fly. Its not really possible to say that the first guy is stronger than the second.

As for calithenics vs. weights, I believe that weights and calithenics have the potential to get you to a higher level of performance than calithenics alone.

[Braden]

Agreed completely.

[ElPietro]

Originally posted by Braden
Odd that you agreed with my albeit obvious argument, then completely disagree with it: "and I will just make this one point that almost anything that can be done using calisthenics can be done better using weight training."

Well the obvious part was the various ways you can define strength. Other than that you didn't really say much, although you did type a whole lot out to not have much of a point.

[Braden]

*boggle* Ah, I see we're at the point where someone gets made fun of for discussing something on a discussion board. How unfortunate.

You understood and agreed that 'defining strength is situational' yet you failed to reject your initial argument that 'situation X is superior for strength'; these two positions very plainly and directly violate one another. To the extent that this was unclear due to my writing rather than your reading, I apologize. It seemed to me to be a ridiculously obvious argument, yet nonetheless you failed to grasp it.

[Kumkuat]

man, with this talk about bulking up, I wish it was that easy. If people can gain muscle as easily as some people say on this board, I'll be one huge guy. Oh yeah more muscles doesn't make you slower.

[ElPietro]

Originally posted by Braden
*boggle* Ah, I see we're at the point where someone gets made fun of for discussing something on a discussion board. How unfortunate.

You understood and agreed that 'defining strength is situational' yet you failed to reject your initial argument that 'situation X is superior for strength'; these two positions very plainly and directly violate one another. To the extent that this was unclear due to my writing rather than your reading, I apologize. It seemed to me to be a ridiculously obvious argument, yet nonetheless you failed to grasp it.

Braden please read the title of the thread. It isn't "Let's define strength and tell me how to get strong."

I am answering the question of the thread which is what is better for martial arts. Martial arts training "in general" is a calisthenic workout, and as I've arleady said that I "feel strongly" that weight training is a great addition to any training regime. If I can be any clearer please let me know. Definition of strength has nothing to do with my main focus.