Crossfit Gyms?

**Equipoise** · Posted On: 5/03/2007 1:19pm

1) As I pointed out, heart muscle hypotrophy is not the only adaptation which occurs when doing 'cardio'.

Answer my original questions. I'll give you a hint by stating that an increase in heart size is detrimental.

2) What I'll call 'aerobic stamina' (e.g. how far can you run before you gas) is highly trainable and working maximal strength is not particularly effective at training it.

Here you're just incorrect on the second point. Ever see the body composition of Olympic sprinters?

3)

Your assertion that with increasing maximal strength comes increasing endurance is simplly not true for endurance over periods an order of magnitude greater than the time taken to perform a set in the weights room.

Training the metabolic pathways to clear away waste and regenerate ATP/CP at more efficient rates improves endurance rates regardless of duration. People that are powerlifters can run 7 miles+. I've seen it done and done it myself. It's determinant upon the speed that is being run or the type of endurance activity that is being done. You equate size with lack of endurance for no scientific reason. Another thing you need to think about is that size is highly determined by caloric intake in regards to the amount of calories expended.

If this were true then people with high lower-body strength from squats etc.. would do better in marathons and iron-man events than people who train by running, swimming and cycling for mile after mile.

Training specificity, technique, genetics...

The reasons for this are not simply to do with technique, they are to do with the 'endurance athelete' having made their body adapt in ways which you just don't get from doing brief heavy sets in the weights room.

Correct, they train in different ways. Do some research on powerlifting. it's not just "brief heavy sets in the weight room."

Now, in the context of martial arts, you're quite right that we should,'t train like marathon runners. But we aren't powerlifters either. Working 'aerobic stamina' up to a certain basic standard is a great help with more MA specific and intense training because it gets your recovery time down.

So wouldn't it be better to train for short intense bursts..?

Crossfit still sucks ****. =-)

**Res Judicata** · Posted On: 5/03/2007 2:18pm

You guys are confusing me and I'm not sure what the Hell you're arguing about.

Arguably the best way to train energy systems for martial arts is through HIIT and similar activities. Crossfit is not bad for that and is quite good at increasing work capacity and GPP. Crossfit is often for the male version of cardio bunnies. The increase in work capacity is really the best thing about Crossfit.

Powerlifting sucks for GPP. Most powerlifters (especially in the higher weight classes) can't run 7 miles. And, in fact, too much energy system work is detrimental to powerlifting. (O-lifting, on the other hand, is actually okay for GPP).

Distance running (long, steady state, moderate intensity cardio) sucks for most things except training for distance running. You're better off with short, intense bursts of activity (i.e. HIIT, jumprope).

**Cullion** · Posted On: 5/03/2007 7:02pm

1) I didn't understand your response to this point. Yes, hypertrophy of heart muscle is a foolish and self limiting goal. But no, hypertrophy of heart muscle is not the only goal, nor the only effect of 'cardio'.

2) Olympic sprinters look great, and in context, certainly closer to what's needed for competitive MA, but they can't run marathons better than marathon runners and it's certainly not all down to technique or 'neuro-muscular' adaptations. It should not be. Lightly cast aside that 'endurance atheleted' have adapted their bodies to do something extraordinary. It's not just technique, and if it were so genetically determined, how come aerobic stamina responds to training in the undrugged population better than maximal strength training?

Regarding your other points, I agree that training should be specific for combat sports and thereby focus on conditioing to several bursts of 2-3 mins of intense work (or however loing your rounds are). However steady cardio, taken to a certain point serves several useful purposes as an adjunct:-

1) It causes growth of the circulatory system and development of metabolic paths in a way which helps with the 'burst' training by getting recovery time down thus letting you fit more high quality 'bursts' into a given hour of training, whether for technique on the bag or more raw, gross anaerobic conditioning such as intense callisthenic circuits.

I have a personal, subjective, question for you.

I've read before that you did a LEO academy test of a 1.5 mile in about 11:30. At the time you thought that was good, and I pointed out that for a young, lean non-smoker of your age it was actually pretty bad.

Since then you've posted that you got a 9:30 on the same distance (at the end of your academy training), which is excellent and way better than I've ever done. Congrats. The questions are:-

I) Did your academy training include plenty of running?

Ii) If so, do you honestly feel that your huge improvement is soley due to technique, or does your body feel different in some other way? (Subjective, I know)

Iii) If your academy experience did include running and/or other 'cardio' did it hurt your lifting numbers?

**Cullion** · Posted On: 5/03/2007 7:04pm

Oh, and the cast majority of Olympic sprinters would be utterly incapable of running a marathon. They are simply adapted to an opposite extreme. And not just by technique.

**Cullion** · Posted On: 5/03/2007 7:12pm

As for 'shouldn't we train in intense bursts'.. Yeah we should, but 'cardio' on the side helps us recovery time between those bursts and fit more 'quality time' in to a given hour of MA training.

I'm not talkong about some crazy 40 mile a week programme. I talking about building up to about 3 miles in 20 minutes 2-3 times a week and then maintaining it while you focus on something more specific to your combat sport, e.g. Technique, 2 minute anaerobic output and explosive strength.

**Equipoise** · Posted On: 5/03/2007 10:45pm

Originally Posted by Cullion

1) I didn't understand your response to this point. Yes, hypertrophy of heart muscle is a foolish and self limiting goal. But no, hypertrophy of heart muscle is not the only goal, nor the only effect of 'cardio'.

You can't hypertrophy the heart past a small and set point due to its constraints and fiber type.

2) Olympic sprinters look great, and in context, certainly closer to what's needed for competitive MA, but they can't run marathons better than marathon runners and it's certainly not all down to technique or 'neuro-muscular' adaptations. It should not be. Lightly cast aside that 'endurance atheleted' have adapted their bodies to do something extraordinary. It's not just technique, and if it were so genetically determined, how come aerobic stamina responds to training in the undrugged population better than maximal strength training [/quote]

Olympic sprinters are endurance athletes. The term endurance athlete lends itself to a whole slew of semantical arguments.

Marathon runners do better at marathons due to their training specificity.

Regarding your other points, I agree that training should be specific for combat sports and thereby focus on conditioing to several bursts of 2-3 mins of intense work (or however loing your rounds are). However steady cardio, taken to a certain point serves several useful purposes as an adjunct:-

Training should be specific for any goal or sport.

However steady cardio, taken to a certain point serves several useful purposes as an adjunct

1) It causes growth of the circulatory system and development of metabolic paths in a way which helps with the 'burst' training by getting recovery time down thus letting you fit more high quality 'bursts' into a given hour of training, whether for technique on the bag or more raw, gross anaerobic conditioning such as intense callisthenic circuits.

That is incorrect. You're neglecting the point of varying fiber types and their purposes. The energy pathways are different as well. Read up on glycolytic pathways, oxidative pathways and the oxidative-glycolytic pathways. You also need to factor in gluconogenesis which is used by all fiber types and not specifically trained from a focus upon IA or IIA, IIB & IIC fibers.

I have a personal, subjective, question for you.

I've read before that you did a LEO academy test of a 1.5 mile in about 11:30. At the time you thought that was good, and I pointed out that for a young, lean non-smoker of your age it was actually pretty bad.

Since then you've posted that you got a 9:30 on the same distance (at the end of your academy training), which is excellent and way better than I've ever done. Congrats. The questions are:-

The decrease in time was due to better training habits and knowledge, not due to the running. The running in the academy, which lasted up until about week 23 was usually long and at a snail's pace to compensate for the slowest in the group. You break ranks and they smoke everyone. They grind you for mental endurance rather than physical. My technique at running also became a hell of a lot better, including longer strides, better usage of the arms, breathing etc.

Iii) If your academy experience did include running and/or other 'cardio' did it hurt your lifting numbers?

Not particularly. Assuming I had enough sleep and had a proper diet, I was able to increase my lifts in whatever mesocycle I was using. The running just usually pissed me off more than anything. The PT that we received was mainly for all around fitness, not for anything specific. I don't run and have not run in any capacity other than chasing a person in about 10 months. I can still run quite effectively for over half of a mile. I focus solely upon lifting. As you said however, I can not run a marathon.... I have not trained for it ;-)

**Cullion** · Posted On: 5/04/2007 5:09pm

Originally Posted by equipoise

That is incorrect. You're neglecting the point of varying fiber types and their purposes. The energy pathways are different as well. Read up on glycolytic pathways, oxidative pathways and the oxidative-glycolytic pathways. You also need to factor in gluconogenesis which is used by all fiber types and not specifically trained from a focus upon IA or IIA, IIB & IIC fibers.

Which part is incorrect? that prolonged steady-state cardio doesn't induce blood-vessel growth (particularly around the lungs) or that you don't think this helps with recovery times between bursts of more intense training (such as rounds or intense sets of bodyweight exercises) ?

I'm sure what you're saying about muscle fibres is true, but muscle fibres aren't the only things which adapt to training demands.

**Equipoise** · Posted On: 5/04/2007 7:55pm

or that you don't think this helps with recovery times between bursts of more intense training (such as rounds or intense sets of bodyweight exercises) ?

While the body works in synergy, the metabolic pathways don't necessarily translate to better short term bursts of energy due to training for the usage of aerobic activities via the training of type IA fibers. Again, it's a matter of training specificity. One particular fact is that you can't isolate fibers specifically to train hence the all or nothing principle. Aside from that metabolic pathways, hypertrophy etc, work to make the body be able to complete repeated activities more efficiently.

You're on the right track with your knowledge, it needs to be tweaked a bit.