Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Re: sports and preparing the body for it, look at how the pros do it...they are the pros for a reason.

Not that you can't come along and evolve a sport like the greats...who are the greats for a reason.

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not going to argue with you... if my mate did some additional strength work his Jitz would improve, you can disagree if you like but that's my opinion

Surely you saw UFC on Fox on the weekend? (yeah I know we are now talking MMA which we agree on)

Penn and Diaz both got thoroughly embarrassed by bigger/stronger/faster opponents, even though they have some of the best skills in MMA

in any sport with weight divisions, body composition is very important... you maybe able to mask your deficiency with freakish talent/ability but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be even better had you put some effort into a strength and conditioning regime

Just to throw a variable into this discussion, given we are talking about strength and it's importance in sports like MMA: what about muscle mass restricting movement or flexibility? Is that plausible?

Not that I'm a large man by most gym going standards, but I'm definitely less flexible than before I ever picked up a barbell and often wonder how people bigger than me cope with it affecting sports or everyday life. Sure you can do stretches to maintain and improve flexibility...but eventually muscle contacts muscle. So I'm asking, surely there are sports where your arms need to bend all the way around the world and muscle mass (a byproduct of strength) is going to interfere? Throwing a light ball?

I think you can throw up any example of any athlete with a poor physique or a lack of strength thats still great

But the point is, would he be even better if he was stronger and faster?

We dont know, but I'm sure we can have an educated guess

This is the point I argue.

Muscle mass is a by product of eating

Strength is a by product of resistance training

A muscle doesnt have to get larger to get stronger

Nghiep Luu deadlifted 271kg@65kg last weekend. He doesnt even look like he trains, but he's plenty strong

I find it strange that anyone still thinks lifting weights is an anabolic activity, its catabolic

Dont want to get bigger, restrict calories

Yes Nick, I watched the UFC event on the weekend. I also have every season of the Ultimate Fighter on DVD, yet to miss an event in Australia, going to the final event of the year in Vegas and have a number of previous payper views on dvd. Whilst I would not pretend to know more about then you or Markos about power lifting, I do have a lot of knowledge when it comes to MMA, having nearly turned professional myself and also qualified to instruct juniors and seniors.

earlier I was talking about purely BJJ and the benefits of strength training. I honestly believe until you become an expert in a sport like that where the main aspect is technique and body mechanics, it wont be of benefit to you. There are literally hundreds of examples where using brute strength in a lock is counter productive.

I also mentioned earlier that muscle mass in MMA has shown time and time again to not be a great idea, for some reason they seem to tire faster as Joe Rogan says their arms gas quicker and become unsless. When it comes to flexibility, I have no idea as I can't even touch my toes.

Also Markos, whilst there are weight divisions for a reason, its not always better to be bigger. Back in the early days of the UFC, smaller guys did beat some of the heavy weights. I also believe (but could be wrong) that Penn has competed in the super weight division for BJJ and been successful.

But not the same for all sports, look at some of the Olympic Sprinters, some of those blokes have great physiques which I am positive they didnt get just from sprinting.

I dont think you understand Mitch

Do you think everytime Nghiep has to pick something up off the floor he has to use ALL his power?

Its great knowing its there when you need it though

No different to a T88 on a GTR

Why take a knife to a gun fight

The question is, will being stronger and faster make you a worse athlete?

This is the point I argue.

Muscle mass is a by product of eating

Strength is a by product of resistance training

A muscle doesnt have to get larger to get stronger

Nghiep Luu deadlifted 271kg@65kg last weekend. He doesnt even look like he trains, but he's plenty strong

I find it strange that anyone still thinks lifting weights is an anabolic activity, its catabolic

Dont want to get bigger, restrict calories

I am a stranger to most of the actual science behind exercise and muscle development, so you'll need to forgive my ignorance on these questions...

Do you believe in the theory/ies behind different rep ranges for hypertrophy training vs strength training?

I get the whole, strength is built in the gym, size is built in the kitchen thing. But is it not ideal to supplement your strength training with a lot of calories, therefore likely to increase muscle size at the same time (that's what I was getting at with my "size is a byproduct of strength" statement)?

What happens physically to the muscle to make it stronger without getting bigger? Does it get denser (this I am particularly interested in, as I think my muscles are fairly strong for their size and have always wondered what allows for this)?

Cheers

Your limiting your argument to one sport

Were talking about the benefits of strength

Check the weightlifting results at the Olympics

Bigger is stronger

Dont use an athletes physique to gauge his strength either, refer to Nghiep

Thats a great question Birds.

I dont think we'll ever know the answer as no athlete has ever trained in the one rep range his entire life

I believe the biggest variance is the end user, everyone responds differently to every stimulus

Thats why we do reps from 100 per set to 1RM, and everything in between

Set a goal, work out what works best for you. Most end up in denial though

Zoran at PTC can deadlift 280kg, finds 140kg x 10 hard.

Everyone is different

I was more directing the argument to Nick saying his mate would get better at BJJ if he added a strength routine in, rather then sport as a whole. My personal opinion in regards to his mate, is that his skill would increase faster if he got some more matt time down, be it technique work or rolling.

Certainly in MMA strength and explosive power is something that all fighters train to increase, as well as endurance, etc etc.

To throw another spanner into the works, I have recently taken up golf socially on the weekend with a couple of mates. Would a strength routine here help me lower my score? I think not, i think the biggest thing that would help my game (as a social player) is practice and some proper coaching.

I play oztag once a week, train legs once a week, including squats, now I dont do 3-5 reps I am for 10-15, am I faster this season since training legs more and harder then I was last? Honestly I cant answer that question, but I haven't scored as many tries this season, we have however gone up a league.

Its an interesting discussion and in my opinion not easily solved. But in my opinion regarding sports and competition on a ammeter level and social levels, technique and practice far out way any additional gym work even if you fit it in with practice. On a top professional level my opinion changes, I think a good strength and conditioning routine is another piece to the puzzle.

What happens physically to the muscle to make it stronger without getting bigger? Does it get denser (this I am particularly interested in, as I think my muscles are fairly strong for their size and have always wondered what allows for this)?

Seem to have answered my own question with this article (not the training suggestions, but the reference to "biochemical adaptations" as the structural difference between strength and size):

http://www.livestrong.com/article/436092-mass-vs-strength/

Mitch, I believe talent is first, second and third in importance for any sport. I have argued this my whole life. Its why I dont like the AFL draft, Greg Williams would not get drafted in this day and age.

But you can NEVER be too strong or too fast

I agree 100% with you when it comes to talent.

How does lifting make you fast??????

Lifting heavy for low reps stimulates fast twitch muscle fibers, which are responsible for rapid movement in the body, so you develop explosive strength in those muscles.

Heavy squats = explosive leg strength = jump higher / quicker and run faster. Therefore useful to sprinters and anyone who needs to move fast for short periods of time.

In contrast, marathon runners depend on their slow twitch fibers, which contract muscle slower, but also wear down slower = better endurance. High rep, low weight training stimulates these.

Pretty sure that's how it works anyway.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...