Jump to content

Should 'Training' Be For A Purpose Or Aesthetics


TigerForce1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Being new to this community I recently stumbled across the Health and Fitness topics. I found that most guys especially were seeking answers to how to gain size, get toned or increase strength. I feel that most people associate strength with muscular size and weight lifting stats. This is something I used to do also until I questioned the gains you get from that type of training especially when applied to real life street combat situations. I mean that bench pressing equals strong and big chests but that also leads to a slow delivery of a punch when throwing hooks. Boxers rarely build their chests this reason. Curls enable you to build large bicep muscles but this type of strength does not help you in any life situations. The same goes for many weight training exercises because most are designed to pull or push weights at different angles but do little for real life situations of combat.

After some thought and research I questioned what exercises and training should be implemented to gain an edge in the heat of a fight in need to defend yourself.

My theory is that your exercise program should be designed around your action. For example throwing a punch requires powerfull fast movements similar to throwing a ball or chopping with an axe at a tree so why not practice these movements to build the correct muscles involved to that job. Stamping on someone requires powerfull driving of legs so why not practice this by legpressing with one leg against immovable objects to build those muslcles involved. Grappling requires immense grip strength so train those muscles by attempting to squash apples and potatos in each palm. To build overall body strength try to push against an immovable object like a wall or a tree, this involves the use of major muscle groups and smaller ones that get neglected during weight training exercises. You could also try pulling a rope tied against pole to increase your man handling power. This type of training is back to basics and serves a pupose not just something designed to increase muscular size for aesthetics. Because in all honesty bodybuilders look strong and powerfull but the low bodyfat and low water levels for tone and cuts is gained by sapping the body to show definition but a person in that state is at their weakest point. Just ask how a bodybuilder feels after a competing. Their power is only useful for lifting weights at controlled angles and do not serve any purpose in the real world. We need to be powerfull but we need to be strong for a purpose. Stamina needs to be on top our priorities, we should also be able to climb and jump. By practising these movements and feeding our bodies we can build those muscles to do that job efficiently. The best thing about this back to basics training is that you can apply it out of the gym anywhere. Incorporate press ups and bodyeight exercises such as chinups, bodyweght squats to increase natural strength without weakening the body by injuring it. Isometric exercises are also great for this type of training as they require no equipment and the resistance is again made up by natural exercises such as pushing your palms together and applying pressure or locking out your arms against a door frame. My reason for writing on this topic is because I too was into weight training but asked myself questions on how the people in the ages before modern equipment and time for long complicated training routines were able to build powerful bodies that could be efficient in combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Purpose, many guys go for aesthetics, but in reality we should do it because it will make us healthy and better athletes in general.

It's good for the mind as well. The reason Guru Sahib promoted wrestling was because it was a physical fitness activity and you were humbled when you got down and lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

training should be for purpose, for me the main purpose of training is so when it comes down to having to use your body then u are fit and healthy, just like if someone tries to mug you you need to be able to defend yourself, therefore training should be so u can defend yourself, and if the back to basics approach works better than curls, bench press etc then the back to basics approach should be used, but yeah, these days most people train for aesthetics, but aesthetics is good too because i'm sure a large, bulky man/woman who has a massive chest from the bench press would be more intimidating than

a man who uses the back to basics approach, but that's just my opinion :) even though i have no experience of martial arts i think it would be the best thing to do to stay in shape is take up a martial art, because it will keep you fit and you learn how to defend yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Training should be for a purpose, at least for a sikh. You are however wrong on the subject of exercise movements such as a benchpress not translating to real world strength. Firstly, if you are unable to squat/deadlift/bench press (3 big lifts) heavy, you will be forever weak. The reason for this is that no other exercise even comes close to the squat/deadlift or bench - do as much research as you want, compound movements far exceed any other type of training in terms of strength.

Now, regarding self-defense - this is a different matter. Many people, including sikhs, seem to confuse fighting/strength/aesthetics. For example - a powerlifter is good at his sport and an MMA is good at his sport. In a fight the MMA FIGHTER would beat the powerlifter or bodybuilder...because he is able to, well, fight.

However, I believe that one should build a solid base of strength. Being strong is a feat of man, being weak is not. I then believe one should move onto other self-defense arts (thai boxing / BJJ are very practical). Finally, once you've built your strength there is nothing wrong with being lean. You look more presentable and health rather than being fat - which makes a gursikh look unpresentible or skinny, makes a sikh look weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the movements that you mentioned such as heavy squats, benchpress, deadlifts are usefull for increasing strength. If they went then these movements would not be utilised by powerlifters.

I want you to think outside of the box! Let's take science into consideration. For strong powerfull muscles they need to be exposed to intense exercise, food for growth and rest to repair muscles. These three lead to growth and strength. The muscle has no eyes so it cannot differentiate between exercises or equipment or method used to workout. The muscle only responds to the pressures you put on it- so in theory the exercise or equipment used is irrelevant as only pressures and intensity matter. The back to basics approach can and does work but the intensity matters as it does in weight training or powerlifting!

I also agree that Singhs need to look strong but they also need to be able to apply that strength to the real world. By just doing weight training alone you are limiting yourself to repetition strength and strength that is limited to the gym boundaries. Powerlifters are great at lifting stationery objects but put a moving person infront of them for a 3 min round and they would struggle. The reson being that their muscles are trained for limited repetitions and time so the muscles start to get fatigued quickly.

I am by no means anti weight training as I too used this type of training for years but I feel that I have found an allternative but unorthodox way of training that works for me personally and requires far less regimented style of routines or equient. But hey whatever works!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the movements that you mentioned such as heavy squats, benchpress, deadlifts are usefull for increasing strength. If they went then these movements would not be utilised by powerlifters.

I want you to think outside of the box! Let's take science into consideration. For strong powerfull muscles they need to be exposed to intense exercise, food for growth and rest to repair muscles. These three lead to growth and strength. The muscle has no eyes so it cannot differentiate between exercises or equipment or method used to workout. The muscle only responds to the pressures you put on it- so in theory the exercise or equipment used is irrelevant as only pressures and intensity matter. The back to basics approach can and does work but the intensity matters as it does in weight training or powerlifting!

I also agree that Singhs need to look strong but they also need to be able to apply that strength to the real world. By just doing weight training alone you are limiting yourself to repetition strength and strength that is limited to the gym boundaries. Powerlifters are great at lifting stationery objects but put a moving person infront of them for a 3 min round and they would struggle. The reson being that their muscles are trained for limited repetitions and time so the muscles start to get fatigued quickly.

I am by no means anti weight training as I too used this type of training for years but I feel that I have found an allternative but unorthodox way of training that works for me personally and requires far less regimented style of routines or equient. But hey whatever works!

Umm, 'exercise or equipment used is irrelevant' - this point is way of the mark. If you want to involve science then read up on compound movements (squats,deadlifts,benchpress,olympic lifts). You're right that the body doesn't know any different however, movement patterns work different muscles. For example:

Barbell Squat vs Leg press (or smith machine squat if you want)

Barbell squat:

- free weight, recruiting many muscle fibers during the exercise

- stressing the CNS, thus building overall strength

- full body exercise

- strength gained from this can be applied to anywhere. This exercise produces 'functional strength'

Leg Press:

- isolated movement (works legs only)

- restricted movement, can cause muscle imbalances

- strength gained from this exercise can NOT be carried over to the squat

- doesn't stress the CNS

- Leg Press is useful for advanced lifters who require muscle isolations, not novices.

Strength built from compound movements can be carried into the real world. It'd be silly to think other wise. A person squatting 200kg isn't going to struggle lifting other real world objects.

However, this goes back to my example of being good at fighting vs being good at strength training. I think you're confusing two different concepts here. One can build strength, but that doesn't mean they'd be good at fighting - you have to join a club/ get a teacher to be good at that, on the other hand a good fighter isn't going to be strong as a power-lifter.

However, a fighter can engage in strength training thus improving him/her at his own art. If you put an untrained fighter vs a powerlifter...the powerlifter has a higher chance of winning simply due to his overwhelming strength.

If you dont mind me ask, what were your lifts on the big 3? I've yet to find a sikh (vegetarian) who has pulled some impressive numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a hard Singh to win over! But never mind at least you're committed to your cause.

Strength Training and Weight training are two different discliplines but I still feel neither can cross over to help you affectively in combat affectively. Marius Puduanski is a prime example. A world strongest man titlist who crossed over to Polish MMA with years of Strength Training and and years of Kick Boxing experience. He struggled in his second fight and was unable to overwhelm his out of shape and unskilled martial artist opponent. He could not man handle or grapple or even lift an mobile weight that did not want to be lifted.

Stationery weight is lifted in form and humans whether trained or not are a totally different scenario when it goes down to dominating them. Most guys that train for strength or size are programmed to lift in low repetitions which hinders you in real life situations because muscle fatigues and more so there is a mental block once we reach our desired number of repetition in a set. So I disagree that a guy who trains for strength will have an edge against an untrained oponent. For a short window of time only the strength athlete will have an edge but once the muscle that is trained for lifting is out it's comfort zone then the untrained fighter will be able to close the gap.

Again everything will boil down to mental strength!

Lifting wise I never trained for single repetitons or tested my max. But I worked in reps of 6 and bench stat was 135kg, squat was weak at 160kg, deadlifting was at 220kg, military press on smith was 110kg. By no means were these great as there were guys who could push out 160kg bench presses with body support suits. These were my best training weights!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a hard Singh to win over! But never mind at least you're committed to your cause.

Strength Training and Weight training are two different discliplines but I still feel neither can cross over to help you affectively in combat affectively. Marius Puduanski is a prime example. A world strongest man titlist who crossed over to Polish MMA with years of Strength Training and and years of Kick Boxing experience. He struggled in his second fight and was unable to overwhelm his out of shape and unskilled martial artist opponent. He could not man handle or grapple or even lift an mobile weight that did not want to be lifted.

Stationery weight is lifted in form and humans whether trained or not are a totally different scenario when it goes down to dominating them. Most guys that train for strength or size are programmed to lift in low repetitions which hinders you in real life situations because muscle fatigues and more so there is a mental block once we reach our desired number of repetition in a set. So I disagree that a guy who trains for strength will have an edge against an untrained oponent. For a short window of time only the strength athlete will have an edge but once the muscle that is trained for lifting is out it's comfort zone then the untrained fighter will be able to close the gap.

Again everything will boil down to mental strength!

Lifting wise I never trained for single repetitons or tested my max. But I worked in reps of 6 and bench stat was 135kg, squat was weak at 160kg, deadlifting was at 220kg, military press on smith was 110kg. By no means were these great as there were guys who could push out 160kg bench presses with body support suits. These were my best training weights!

- Interesting. I know of an example where a bodybuilder turned strength athlete and now MMA fighter would beg to differ. His squat is around 170kg - benching 140kg and deadlifting 220kg. His fight against a UK kick boxing champion went along the lines of this: 15 seconds or so into the fight he picked up the kick boxer, threw him to the ground and made him submit (I can give you a link to the fight if you want.)

- Also: http://www.veloforce.net/STforFigthers.html

- A good MMA strength routine and all the fancy science behind why you need to do the compound movements: http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/hammer_down_strength

- The untrained fighter wouldn't have the chance to close 'the gap'.

- Wow, your lifts are impressive. May I ask were you what was your bodyweight at the time? How long did it take for you to achieve those lifts? What was your diet? What type of programming did you use? Squat type (lowbar / highbar)? I think you're the first vegetarian I've come across who has good novice/intermediate lifts (dependent on bodyweight).

Finally, squats, deadlifts give you 'mental strength'. I've noticed with these movements that I've stressed my CNS over and over thus giving me that 'mental strength'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stationery weight is lifted in form and humans whether trained or not are a totally different scenario when it goes down to dominating them. Most guys that train for strength or size are programmed to lift in low repetitions which hinders you in real life situations because muscle fatigues and more so there is a mental block once we reach our desired number of repetition in a set.

^^

One final point, wouldn't one who trains any other way also suffer from this? Doing bodyweight only? 100 pressups? 200? They too are limited by repetition? The untrained fighter is also limited by fatigue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use