And Train In Accordance With What He Is Known To Do!
© COPYRIGHT 2009 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – September 2009 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
American Combato
Seattle Combatives
THE incredible lack of realism and absence of just plain common sense that exists in the martial arts field when it comes to PRACTICAL SELF-DEFENSE is mind-boggling. We have "hitters" ridiculously practicing jumping and spinning kicks, high area body kicks, clenched fist punching, sparring, and archaic methods of linear blocking, as well as totally irrelevant classical kata. We have "grapplers" focusing on groundwork and one-on-one competitive matches, which emphasize "submission" and "pinning" actions, and then we have hybrids(!) — i.e. the inevitable compromisers who combine clenched fist pummeling with groundwork (laced, of course, with a sprinkling of elbowing, throwing, and one or two other tidbits). And of course there is not a single thing wrong with any of these things, until or unless you specify "PRACTICAL APPLICATION AND REAL WORLD PERSONAL DEFENSE" as your training objective. That changes everything, immediately.
Yes, competition fighters are genuinely tough fellows, and yes — certainly — many of them can defend themselves in actual situations. No doubt about it. However, the same can be said of boxers, wrestlers, judo men, kick boxers, and so on. None of which demonstrates anything at all of relevance insofar as establishing that which is required in HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT and EMERGENCY SELF-DEFENSE SITUATIONS, when the entire reason and purpose is preparing for combat and self-defense as opposed to competition.
To use an analogy with firearms:
An experienced and competent big game hunter can certainly employ his bolt action .378 weatherby magnum rifle (an upgrade of the brutal .375) in a battlefield environment, and perhaps even be successful in dropping an attacking soldier or two. But that does not make the .378 round, the bolt action rifle that fires it, or the marksman/hunter who employs this awesome combination, any kind of "model of that which is best suited to" REAL MILITARY BATTLEFIELD ENGAGEMENTS. A .308 battle rifle — designed, intended, and constructed specifically for warfighting — would be the intelligent man's choice, for going to war. And, similarly, the type and style of firing that the big game hunter excels in when dropping African big game, and which — admittedly — he may be able to apply to antipersonnel engagements, is hardly the type and style of rifle shooting appropriate to combat.
Self-defense and hand-to-hand combat is a subject and study unto itself. Many in the martial arts do not (or do want to) realize this, and so they continually equate that which is sporting, aesthetic, classical, or theatrical with that which works in combat.
Self-defense is war. It is a microcosmic war between individuals, instead of between nations; but it is war, nonetheless. Where and when an activity is presented as "self-defense" in a non-warlike manner, then the term self-defense becomes a misnomer. It is self-defense when one individual is set upon by another, and when force or the threat of force is utilized for the personal satisfaction, gratification, or gain of the attacker against an innocent victim.
• Being jumped in the street by one or more savages is a self-defense situation
• Being seized suddenly from behind is a self-defense situation
• Being attacked by someone using a knife, club, firearm, or other hand-held weapon (or implement which he employs as a weapon) is a self-defense situation
• Being confronted by a punk, troublemaker, or bully whose intention it is to terrorize, push-around, beat up, intimidate or otherwise torment you is a self-defense situation
• Being suddenly aware that your home is being broken into — invaded — by marauding scum is a self-defense situation
• Being set upon by a deranged individual who proceeds, suddenly and without provocation, to violently assault you is a self-defense situation
• Being targeted for a kidnapping is a self-defense situation
• Being with a family member or other loved one and witnessing their being attacked is a self-defense situation
• Being confronted by some lout who proceeds for whatever reason to become physically harassing and abusive — pushing, leaning on, or shoving you — is a self-defense situation
• Being approached by someone who unlawfully blocks your path and refuses to allow you to leave the area is a self-defense situation
• Being run off the road and then attacked by a careful of human debris who are "out for kicks" is a self-defense situation
• Being threatened with bodily harm and observing the threatener reach for what you are certain is a concealed weapon is a self-defense situation
• Being set upon by one or more punks while you are riding on a public conveyance is a self-defense situation
• Being the victim of a carjacking in which you as well as your vehicle is the criminal's objective, is a self-defense situation
• Being the intended target of forcible rape constitutes a self-defense situation
Need we continue?
• Agreeing to a physical contest with someone who wishes to participate, and where there are rules and regulations of any kind — plus a referee — is NOT a self-defense situation
• Participating in a judo, boxing, karate, wrestling, kick boxing, or other competition match or event is NOT a self-defense situation
• Mindlessly agreeing to "step outside" (or remain inside!) and fight with someone is NOT a self-defense situation
If it is your purpose to prepare for the realities attendant the unfortunate predicament of finding yourself obliged to defend against serious criminal violence, then look to how violent offenders attack. Analyze their modus operandi. Over the last several hundred years it has been so well documented that we can tell with near certainty how attacks will occur. Certainly, every situation is "different"; but in a very real and provable sense, ALL SITUATIONS IN WHICH VIOLENCE IS DIRECTED AGAINST VICTIMS, ARE ALSO — PREDICTABLY — THE SAME. The types of situations in which violence occurs and the manner in which offenders move against their target-victims is known, is ascertainable, and is quantifiable.
Situational awareness (alertness) is of course rule number one for those wishing to be prepared for an emergency. Agreed-upon contests of all types begin at appointed times. Attacks may begin at any time. And anywhere.
Once having determined that one has been targeted for a hostile approach by one or more others who appear to be intent upon the use of force, escape and avoidance — if possible, without incurring undo risk to yourself or to someone else — is the all round best course of action. When escape and avoidance is not possible, then FEROCIOUS PREEMPTIVE ATTACK — relentless, "ferocious, preemptive attack"! — is the wisest course. Seize the initiative and go after your attackers! Violently, mercilessly, viciously, and with every ounce of strength, resolve, fury, and determination you can muster.
Such techniques as are popularly labeled "self-defense techniques" are really the least desirable techniques upon which to rely in an emergency, because these techniques are applied against a full blown attack, and only after the attack has gotten fully underway. These techniques, providing that they are of real quality and not mere "artistic exercises", are necessary in a comprehensive program, of course — but only as a backup to techniques of PREEMPTION.
We train in American Combato then, to react to violence in one of three ways:
We AVOID it (the best of all possible options)
We PREEMPT the assailant (best option when avoidance is impossible)
We COUNTERATTACK the attacker's action (the least desirable option, but nevertheless one we all must be prepared to employ)
Taking a specific, concrete example:
If you notice that a suspicious. individual is walking toward you aa you proceed down the street your wisest course of action is to unostentatiously alter your own route and cross the street. AVOIDANCE.
If, as you cross the street, you observe that this individual has cued in on you and has crossed the street also, heading in your direction, you shift immediately to "condition orange". As the individual confronts you, you are in your ready position, distanced properly, and fully prepared for trouble (without revealing in any way that this is the case).
If the individual suddenly commences an aggressive action, you immediately attack. You lash out with a kick and break his leg, thrust a sharp fingertips attack to his eyes, or otherwise drive into him, preempting his onslaught. PREEMPTION.
Only in an instance when you were too carelessly oblivious to the stranger's approach, would you forego avoidance and continue to walk into a questionable situation. And, only if you were perhaps in "condition white" would the individual whose approach you had eventually to deal with as an attack need to be "countered" — since only because you blew the "avoidance" and the "preemption" options did it become necessary to handle his full blown attack with a reactive, "counterattacking" technique.
The important thing of course is that we train so as to be able to do that which we must (ie avoid, preempt, or counter) in suitably realistic contexts.
No one "squares off" in a self-defense situation or "agrees to fight". A self-defense emergency is like an ASSASSINATION attempt, not like a "contest". Prepare for it accordingly.
Many, many years ago (or at least it seems like many, many years ago!) we learned something very valuable from one of our beloved teachers: Charlie Nelson. We learned to clip and to study all news stories from local and even out-of-town newspapers regarding violent crimes. These stories, and not ridiculous attempts to master "contest strategies" and "winning actions" for competition will reveal precisely that which one is up against when one wishes to prepare for real world self-defense.
There is also personal experience, if one has been unfortunate enough to have amassed any.
There is also speaking with seasoned street cops.
There is also speaking with psychiatrists and psychologists who have specialized in studying criminal violence.
There is also interviewing and garnering information from military combat veterans (Note: this does NOT mean anyone who has served in the military. It means those who have been in hand-to-hand combat and who know — firsthand — what it involves.)
And finally there is the individual who has been victimized and who has been fortunate enough to survive the incident.
All of the foregoing is highly recommended. We have unceasingly been utilizing these methods and means of acquiring reliable knowledge about close combat and self-defense since the late 1960's. And we continue to use these methods, whenever and wherever we are able, as frequently as we can.
We respectfully suggest: If you are after really reliable and practical doctrine regarding close combat and personal defense, you follow our example and our advice.
In preparing for survival one cannot be too "realistic".
Bradley J. Steiner
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Slow VS Explosive Lifting: The Controversy Continues…
By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems
http://www.staleytraining.com
“Injuries are not caused by methods per se, but by the inappropriate, premature, and/or excessive application of methods.”
– Charles Staley
In all the years I’ve been involved in sports conditioning, I’ve never seen an issue with as much longevity and potential for heated debate as the question of whether or not it is necessary, safe, and or effective to perform “explosive” or “ballistic” movements in the weight room.
If you’re active on the internet, you’ll discover endless, passionate (and often, ugly) confrontations between those who advocate slow lifting speeds, and those who espouse so-called explosive training techniques, such as Olympic lifting and it’s derivatives, and plyometric training methods.
While it is true that explosively-performed (i.e., high velocity) repetitions can be potentially more dangerous than low velocity movements, it’s just as true that heavier weights, since they put more tension on the musculoskeletal system, are potentially more dangerous than lighter weights. So it really becomes an issue of using the right tool for the right job.
Remember, in order to train a biologic system, you must apply stress to that system. Too much stress leads to injury; too little leads to little or no effect; just the right amount leads to a training effect.
As you read this article, please refer to the section below which outlines the more technical terms used herein (click here or scroll down). These terms are often used inappropriately, which leads to even more confusion.
Also, please resist the human instinct to either agree or disagree with the statements I will make. Instead, simply listen. Observe. Correlate the material to your own experiences. In this way, you’ll give yourself the best opportunity to come to an intelligent decision regarding this issue.
What is Training?
Training involves the exposure of a biologic system to the systematic application of increasing stress at a frequency, intensity, and duration below that system’s maximal tolerance limit, which, over time, causes a resultant increase in that system’s tolerance limit (1).
Different training methods cause different adaptations. For example, sets lasting between 20 and 70 seconds seem to promote hypertrophy better than sets of greater or lesser duration (2). Sets performed with incomplete rests develop anaerobic capacity through a greater proliferation of capillaries in the muscle(s) being trained (3). High repetition sets develop Type I (slow twitch) fibers, while low repetition sets with heavy weight challenge Type II (fast twitch) fibers.
Long-term performance of an exercise which takes a muscle through less than it’s full range of motion promotes a shortening of that muscle, while chronic use of exercises which take the muscle through it’s full range of motion encourage the muscle to become longer (4).
These examples of the specificity principle strongly imply that the neuromuscular and musculoskeletal systems are capable of adapting to explosive movements just as they are capable of adapting to any other type of stimuli provided.
This is the real key to understanding this issue...that the athlete moves through an appropriate series of progressions which allow a sequential exposure to a gradually increasing stimulus. If you skip any part of this progression, or if you progress too quickly, injury may result as you exceed the body’s “maximum tolerance threshold” to that stimulus.
Defining the Issue
Before we proceed further, please appreciate that this issue is a difficult one to analyze, since there are several ways to lift a weight.
For example, powerlifting is not normally considered an “explosive” event, since at 1RM levels, the bar moves very slowly, due to its mass. Nevertheless, the lifter is attempting to maximally accelerate the bar. So, are we discussing the actual speed of the lift, or the attempt to maximally accelerate the weight (even if the implement speed is low to to its mass)?
Also, we must distinguish between lifting weights at a fast tempo, and lifting weights in an accelerative manner (increasing the speed over the duration of a repetition). Further, are we speaking of lifting light to moderate weight, or heavy weights?
For instance, when performing the deadlift, using a fast lifting speed with a light weight would simply reduce both the tension, as well as the time under tension, of the involved musculature, leading to a compromised training effect.
However, when deadlifting a challenging weight, you stand a better chance of making the lift if you attempt to accelerate the bar. It is important to understand that this is a smooth acceleration, not a rapid “jerk” on the bar, which would in fact, increase the likelihood of injury.
Incidentally, I define “good form” a bit differently than most. If you enter a workout with pre-determined parameters such as number of sets and reps, tempo, optimal body alignment, range of motion (which may be complete or partial) length of rest periods, and you maintain these parameters, you’re using “good form.”
So for example, you may set out to use a 2 second tempo, which is relatively fast (and may or may not be safe, depending on the exercise, your experience, the weights being lifted, and a host of other factors). However, if you set out to do a 4 second tempo, and due to fatigue or inattention it ends up being a 2 second tempo, this shows a lack of control, which in my opinion, heightens the potential for injury.
So, although many people cite the dangers of “fast” or “explosive” lifting, I hope you can now appreciate that the issue is far more complex than most people consider. During this article, I will make reference to explosive, ballistic, and accelerative lifting techniques, in an effort to cover the various possible methods.
Is Accelerative Activity an Inherent Characteristic of Human Movement?
The phenomenon known as the stretch-shortening cycle (or SSC) strongly hints that the body is, in fact, designed for ballistic and accelerative stress (5).
To illustrate this concept, I’ll ask you to imagine the act of throwing a baseball, overhand style.You grab the ball, extend your throwing arm behind you, and, just as the arm nears complete extension (the eccentric portion of the throw), you rapidly reverse the motion (the concentric phase) and release the ball.
Now, just as an experiment, extend the arm back, and pause for three seconds before you throw. It’s intuitively obvious that the second throw, aside from feeling totally unnatural, will travel much slower and result in a shorter throw.
When you throw (or jump, hit, etc) correctly, the musculo-tendinous unit stores potential kinetic energy during the eccentric phase of the movement. At full stretch, the muscle begins its reversal into the concentric phase. If you use proper timing (the “switch” between eccentric and concentric must be very rapid), you can recover all that potential energy and return it during the concentric phase. If you wait-even for a split second- the energy will dissipate.
A simpler way to visualize the SSC is to imagine the muscles as elastic bands that stretch during eccentric activity, and contract during the concentric portion of the movement. (Incidentally, plyometric training programs, usually consisting of various jumps and throws, are designed to train the elastic potential of the musculoskeletal system.)
If you watch people carefully in various situations, you’ll notice that, whenever there is an option to accelerate a load, people will take that option.
On stairclimbing machines, people will, especially as fatigue sets in, tend to step in a bouncy, choppy manner. When a heavy box must be lifted from the floor to a high shelf, a person will accelerate the box throughout the lift.
Further, the motor cortex will normally choose a movement pattern where more muscle groups can participate in the effort, in order to conserve energy and avoid dangerous levels of stress to any single muscle involved in the movement.
Optimal Progression Ensures Safety
Now the question becomes “If this is how muscles work in everyday activities, should we train muscles this way?” My colleague Paul Chek often asserts that “First isolate, then integrate.” What Paul means by this is that before asking the chain to produce high levels of force, one should first strengthen each link of the chain, especially the weakest links.
When training a link, you must “isolate” that link...in other words, create a movement or exercise where associated links have no ability to assist in that movement.
Since muscles are the links in any kinetic chain, another way to view this progression is to “First, train muscles, then train movements.” Either way you choose to conceptualize it, most accelerative lifting movements (such as modified Olympic lifts such as power cleans & snatches, push-jerks, jumps, throws, etc.) involve large numbers of muscles.
Therefore, if these individual muscles are brought to maximum strength levels prior to accelerative, multi-joint movements, the athlete lessens the potential for injury. However, if any link in the chain is relatively weak, that link would logically have a greater potential for injury during any explosive type exercise that involves it.
As an example of the proceeding progression, an athlete wishing to perform power cleans might spend 6-9 weeks developing strength in the quads, hamstrings, spinal erectors, trapezius, glutes, scapular retractors, and gastrocs, and then gradually switch to more explosive training methods, while maintaining the strength of the individual muscle groups, using a reduced volume (about 30 to 50 percent) of work.
In my experience working with Olympic weightlifters, I have used various permutations of this progression and have never witnessed a serious injury.
A recent study by Brian P. Hamill (please see sidebar entitled Multi-Sport Comparative Injury Rates) collaborates my observations (6). In his analysis of statistics derived from surveys and competitions, Hamill found that competitive weightlifting is safer than many other sports, including soccer, recreational weight training, and (believe it or not) badminton.
In his analysis, Hamill suggests that qualified supervision is the most important precondition for safe participation in both competitive weightlifting and recreational weight training.
Should Bodybuilders Perform Ballistic, Explosive, or Accelerative Weight Training?
Legions of successful competitive bodybuilders have achieved their goals without using these techniques. However, it has been my experience that many top physique stars have achieved their success in spite of their training methods and habits, not because of them.
When you have a superior somatype and a favorable hormonal system to support it, and when you have a superior ability to train hard on a consistent basis, you don’t need to sweat the details. Recreational pharmacology should be factored in, also.
But let’s assume that you’re at least the fourth generation of your family to stand upright. Let’s also assume you have a job, and limited chemistry skills. Let’s further assume that your training program could benefit from a bit of variation, and even some fun.
If you fit this profile, and if you employ qualified supervision (I’d recommend calling the United States Weightlifting Federation at 719-578-4508 in order to find a qualified weightlifting coach in your area), I would urge you to explore these methods.
The downside? For starters, HIT Jedis will call you a fool. Also, you may abandon bodybuilding for the sport of Olympic weightlifting. You also run the risk of slow twitch fiber atrophy, as your Type II fibers hypertrophy to unprecedented size. Finally, you may suffer guilt pangs as you find yourself actually enjoying training again. On balance, I’d say it’s worth the risk.
SIDEBAR - Is “HIT” Dead?
For years, the most vocal faction of coaches and athletes in opposition to explosive lifting techniques has been known as “HIT” an acronym meaning “High Intensity Training.”
The HIT doctrine took root through the teachings of Arthur Jones, and has been furthered by Mike Mentzer, and several collegiate strength coaches. HIT has traditionally favored single set, low-speed, machine based movements, and has been vehemently opposed to multi-set periodized approaches, explosive lifts and plyometrics, and free weight exercises.
Recently, however, the HIT “Jedi” (the self-appointed term for adherents of the HIT philosophy) have all but merged with the mainstream on issues of number of sets, repetition ranges, and the use of free weights. They remain steadfast on the use of explosive lifting techniques, however.
In the recently released HITFAQv2.0a , the section describing “proper form” advises “raising and lowering the weight in a deliberate, controlled manner.” The FAQ continues “Anytime, anyone, be they Mr. Universe, or whomever, tells you to move a weight fast, in an ‘explosive’ style, just walk away. That person is a fool.” (I always thought that anyone who took comfort in applying blanket statements to a wide range of circumstances was a fool, but maybe I’ve got it wrong!)
Important Terminology
1) Torque:
The effectiveness of a force to produce rotation of an object about an axis (7). Measured as the product of force and the perpendicular distance from the line of action of the force to the axis of rotation. The SI (International System) unit of torque is the newton-meter (N.m)
2) Force:
That which changes or tends to change the state of rest or motion in matter (7). Force may increase or decrease the velocity of an object. The SI unit of force is the newton (N).
3) Work:
Tthe product of an expressed force and the distance of displacement of an object, irrespective of time (7). The SI unit of work is the joule (J). To measure work, you would multiply the force applied by the distance the force was applied over.
4) Power:
The rate of performing work (7). The SI unit of power is the watt (W). To measure power, you would
5) Velocity:
A change in either the speed or direction of an object, or a change in both the speed and direction of an object (8). Most people use the term velocity to describe a change in the speed of an object.
6) Explosive Strength:
One of two elements of speed strength (power) -the ability to apply a maximal force against an external object (such as a shot put or barbell), or ones own body, as in sprinting or jumping, in minimum time (9).
7) Ballistic:
Infers movement which is accelerative, of high velocity, and with actual projection into free space (10). Ballistic activities include throwing and jumping.
Multi-Sport Comparative Injury Rates
Sport Injuries (per 100 participation hours)
Schoolchild soccer 6.20
UK Rugby 1.92
South African Rugby 0.70
UK Basketball 1.03
USA Basketball 0.03
USA Athletics (Track) 0.57
UK Athletics 0.26
UK Cross-country 0.37
USA Cross-country 0.00
Fives 0.21
P.E. 0.18
Squash 0.10
USA Football 0.10
Badminton 0.05
USA Gymnastics 0.044
UK Tennis 0.07
USA Powerlifting 0.0027
USA Tennis 0.001
Rackets 0.03
USA Volleyball 0.0013
Weight Training 0.0035 (85,733 hrs)
Weightlifting 0.0017 (165,551 hrs)
References:
1) Gross, J., Fetto, J., & Rosen, E, . Musculoskeletal Examination, 1996. Cambridge, Blackwell Science, p.p.5.
2) Poliquin, C., The Poliquin Principles, 1997, Napa, Dayton Publisher’s Group, p.p. 24
3) Fleck, S.J., & Kraemer, W.J., Designing Resistance Training Programs, 1987, Champaign, Human Kinetics, p.p. 58.
4) Komi, P.V (Ed.), Strength and Power in Sport (1992). London. p.p.29
5) Komi, P.V (Ed.), Strength and Power in Sport (1992). London. p.p.169
6) Hamill, B.P., Relative safety of weightlifting and weight training. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 8(1);53-57.1994.
7) Knuttgen, H.G., Force, Work, and Power in Athletic Training. Sports Science Exchange. 8(4). 1995.
8) Norkin, C.C., & Levangie, P.K. Joint Structure & Function. F.A. Davis Company (1992), Philadelphia. p.p.17.
9) Kurz, T. Science of Sports Training. Stadion (1991), Island Pond. p.p. 85
10). Kraemer, W.J. & Newton, R.U., Muscle Power. Muscular Development. March, 1995, p.p. 130-131.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About The Author
Charles Staley...world-class strength/performance coach...his colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results.
Click here to visit Charles' site and grab your 5 FREE videos that will show you how to literally FORCE your body to build muscle, lose fat and gain strength with "Escalating Density Training," Charles' revolutionary, time-saving approach to lifting that focuses on performance NOT pain.
http://www.staleytrainingprograms.com
Director, Staley Training Systems
http://www.staleytraining.com
“Injuries are not caused by methods per se, but by the inappropriate, premature, and/or excessive application of methods.”
– Charles Staley
In all the years I’ve been involved in sports conditioning, I’ve never seen an issue with as much longevity and potential for heated debate as the question of whether or not it is necessary, safe, and or effective to perform “explosive” or “ballistic” movements in the weight room.
If you’re active on the internet, you’ll discover endless, passionate (and often, ugly) confrontations between those who advocate slow lifting speeds, and those who espouse so-called explosive training techniques, such as Olympic lifting and it’s derivatives, and plyometric training methods.
While it is true that explosively-performed (i.e., high velocity) repetitions can be potentially more dangerous than low velocity movements, it’s just as true that heavier weights, since they put more tension on the musculoskeletal system, are potentially more dangerous than lighter weights. So it really becomes an issue of using the right tool for the right job.
Remember, in order to train a biologic system, you must apply stress to that system. Too much stress leads to injury; too little leads to little or no effect; just the right amount leads to a training effect.
As you read this article, please refer to the section below which outlines the more technical terms used herein (click here or scroll down). These terms are often used inappropriately, which leads to even more confusion.
Also, please resist the human instinct to either agree or disagree with the statements I will make. Instead, simply listen. Observe. Correlate the material to your own experiences. In this way, you’ll give yourself the best opportunity to come to an intelligent decision regarding this issue.
What is Training?
Training involves the exposure of a biologic system to the systematic application of increasing stress at a frequency, intensity, and duration below that system’s maximal tolerance limit, which, over time, causes a resultant increase in that system’s tolerance limit (1).
Different training methods cause different adaptations. For example, sets lasting between 20 and 70 seconds seem to promote hypertrophy better than sets of greater or lesser duration (2). Sets performed with incomplete rests develop anaerobic capacity through a greater proliferation of capillaries in the muscle(s) being trained (3). High repetition sets develop Type I (slow twitch) fibers, while low repetition sets with heavy weight challenge Type II (fast twitch) fibers.
Long-term performance of an exercise which takes a muscle through less than it’s full range of motion promotes a shortening of that muscle, while chronic use of exercises which take the muscle through it’s full range of motion encourage the muscle to become longer (4).
These examples of the specificity principle strongly imply that the neuromuscular and musculoskeletal systems are capable of adapting to explosive movements just as they are capable of adapting to any other type of stimuli provided.
This is the real key to understanding this issue...that the athlete moves through an appropriate series of progressions which allow a sequential exposure to a gradually increasing stimulus. If you skip any part of this progression, or if you progress too quickly, injury may result as you exceed the body’s “maximum tolerance threshold” to that stimulus.
Defining the Issue
Before we proceed further, please appreciate that this issue is a difficult one to analyze, since there are several ways to lift a weight.
For example, powerlifting is not normally considered an “explosive” event, since at 1RM levels, the bar moves very slowly, due to its mass. Nevertheless, the lifter is attempting to maximally accelerate the bar. So, are we discussing the actual speed of the lift, or the attempt to maximally accelerate the weight (even if the implement speed is low to to its mass)?
Also, we must distinguish between lifting weights at a fast tempo, and lifting weights in an accelerative manner (increasing the speed over the duration of a repetition). Further, are we speaking of lifting light to moderate weight, or heavy weights?
For instance, when performing the deadlift, using a fast lifting speed with a light weight would simply reduce both the tension, as well as the time under tension, of the involved musculature, leading to a compromised training effect.
However, when deadlifting a challenging weight, you stand a better chance of making the lift if you attempt to accelerate the bar. It is important to understand that this is a smooth acceleration, not a rapid “jerk” on the bar, which would in fact, increase the likelihood of injury.
Incidentally, I define “good form” a bit differently than most. If you enter a workout with pre-determined parameters such as number of sets and reps, tempo, optimal body alignment, range of motion (which may be complete or partial) length of rest periods, and you maintain these parameters, you’re using “good form.”
So for example, you may set out to use a 2 second tempo, which is relatively fast (and may or may not be safe, depending on the exercise, your experience, the weights being lifted, and a host of other factors). However, if you set out to do a 4 second tempo, and due to fatigue or inattention it ends up being a 2 second tempo, this shows a lack of control, which in my opinion, heightens the potential for injury.
So, although many people cite the dangers of “fast” or “explosive” lifting, I hope you can now appreciate that the issue is far more complex than most people consider. During this article, I will make reference to explosive, ballistic, and accelerative lifting techniques, in an effort to cover the various possible methods.
Is Accelerative Activity an Inherent Characteristic of Human Movement?
The phenomenon known as the stretch-shortening cycle (or SSC) strongly hints that the body is, in fact, designed for ballistic and accelerative stress (5).
To illustrate this concept, I’ll ask you to imagine the act of throwing a baseball, overhand style.You grab the ball, extend your throwing arm behind you, and, just as the arm nears complete extension (the eccentric portion of the throw), you rapidly reverse the motion (the concentric phase) and release the ball.
Now, just as an experiment, extend the arm back, and pause for three seconds before you throw. It’s intuitively obvious that the second throw, aside from feeling totally unnatural, will travel much slower and result in a shorter throw.
When you throw (or jump, hit, etc) correctly, the musculo-tendinous unit stores potential kinetic energy during the eccentric phase of the movement. At full stretch, the muscle begins its reversal into the concentric phase. If you use proper timing (the “switch” between eccentric and concentric must be very rapid), you can recover all that potential energy and return it during the concentric phase. If you wait-even for a split second- the energy will dissipate.
A simpler way to visualize the SSC is to imagine the muscles as elastic bands that stretch during eccentric activity, and contract during the concentric portion of the movement. (Incidentally, plyometric training programs, usually consisting of various jumps and throws, are designed to train the elastic potential of the musculoskeletal system.)
If you watch people carefully in various situations, you’ll notice that, whenever there is an option to accelerate a load, people will take that option.
On stairclimbing machines, people will, especially as fatigue sets in, tend to step in a bouncy, choppy manner. When a heavy box must be lifted from the floor to a high shelf, a person will accelerate the box throughout the lift.
Further, the motor cortex will normally choose a movement pattern where more muscle groups can participate in the effort, in order to conserve energy and avoid dangerous levels of stress to any single muscle involved in the movement.
Optimal Progression Ensures Safety
Now the question becomes “If this is how muscles work in everyday activities, should we train muscles this way?” My colleague Paul Chek often asserts that “First isolate, then integrate.” What Paul means by this is that before asking the chain to produce high levels of force, one should first strengthen each link of the chain, especially the weakest links.
When training a link, you must “isolate” that link...in other words, create a movement or exercise where associated links have no ability to assist in that movement.
Since muscles are the links in any kinetic chain, another way to view this progression is to “First, train muscles, then train movements.” Either way you choose to conceptualize it, most accelerative lifting movements (such as modified Olympic lifts such as power cleans & snatches, push-jerks, jumps, throws, etc.) involve large numbers of muscles.
Therefore, if these individual muscles are brought to maximum strength levels prior to accelerative, multi-joint movements, the athlete lessens the potential for injury. However, if any link in the chain is relatively weak, that link would logically have a greater potential for injury during any explosive type exercise that involves it.
As an example of the proceeding progression, an athlete wishing to perform power cleans might spend 6-9 weeks developing strength in the quads, hamstrings, spinal erectors, trapezius, glutes, scapular retractors, and gastrocs, and then gradually switch to more explosive training methods, while maintaining the strength of the individual muscle groups, using a reduced volume (about 30 to 50 percent) of work.
In my experience working with Olympic weightlifters, I have used various permutations of this progression and have never witnessed a serious injury.
A recent study by Brian P. Hamill (please see sidebar entitled Multi-Sport Comparative Injury Rates) collaborates my observations (6). In his analysis of statistics derived from surveys and competitions, Hamill found that competitive weightlifting is safer than many other sports, including soccer, recreational weight training, and (believe it or not) badminton.
In his analysis, Hamill suggests that qualified supervision is the most important precondition for safe participation in both competitive weightlifting and recreational weight training.
Should Bodybuilders Perform Ballistic, Explosive, or Accelerative Weight Training?
Legions of successful competitive bodybuilders have achieved their goals without using these techniques. However, it has been my experience that many top physique stars have achieved their success in spite of their training methods and habits, not because of them.
When you have a superior somatype and a favorable hormonal system to support it, and when you have a superior ability to train hard on a consistent basis, you don’t need to sweat the details. Recreational pharmacology should be factored in, also.
But let’s assume that you’re at least the fourth generation of your family to stand upright. Let’s also assume you have a job, and limited chemistry skills. Let’s further assume that your training program could benefit from a bit of variation, and even some fun.
If you fit this profile, and if you employ qualified supervision (I’d recommend calling the United States Weightlifting Federation at 719-578-4508 in order to find a qualified weightlifting coach in your area), I would urge you to explore these methods.
The downside? For starters, HIT Jedis will call you a fool. Also, you may abandon bodybuilding for the sport of Olympic weightlifting. You also run the risk of slow twitch fiber atrophy, as your Type II fibers hypertrophy to unprecedented size. Finally, you may suffer guilt pangs as you find yourself actually enjoying training again. On balance, I’d say it’s worth the risk.
SIDEBAR - Is “HIT” Dead?
For years, the most vocal faction of coaches and athletes in opposition to explosive lifting techniques has been known as “HIT” an acronym meaning “High Intensity Training.”
The HIT doctrine took root through the teachings of Arthur Jones, and has been furthered by Mike Mentzer, and several collegiate strength coaches. HIT has traditionally favored single set, low-speed, machine based movements, and has been vehemently opposed to multi-set periodized approaches, explosive lifts and plyometrics, and free weight exercises.
Recently, however, the HIT “Jedi” (the self-appointed term for adherents of the HIT philosophy) have all but merged with the mainstream on issues of number of sets, repetition ranges, and the use of free weights. They remain steadfast on the use of explosive lifting techniques, however.
In the recently released HITFAQv2.0a , the section describing “proper form” advises “raising and lowering the weight in a deliberate, controlled manner.” The FAQ continues “Anytime, anyone, be they Mr. Universe, or whomever, tells you to move a weight fast, in an ‘explosive’ style, just walk away. That person is a fool.” (I always thought that anyone who took comfort in applying blanket statements to a wide range of circumstances was a fool, but maybe I’ve got it wrong!)
Important Terminology
1) Torque:
The effectiveness of a force to produce rotation of an object about an axis (7). Measured as the product of force and the perpendicular distance from the line of action of the force to the axis of rotation. The SI (International System) unit of torque is the newton-meter (N.m)
2) Force:
That which changes or tends to change the state of rest or motion in matter (7). Force may increase or decrease the velocity of an object. The SI unit of force is the newton (N).
3) Work:
Tthe product of an expressed force and the distance of displacement of an object, irrespective of time (7). The SI unit of work is the joule (J). To measure work, you would multiply the force applied by the distance the force was applied over.
4) Power:
The rate of performing work (7). The SI unit of power is the watt (W). To measure power, you would
5) Velocity:
A change in either the speed or direction of an object, or a change in both the speed and direction of an object (8). Most people use the term velocity to describe a change in the speed of an object.
6) Explosive Strength:
One of two elements of speed strength (power) -the ability to apply a maximal force against an external object (such as a shot put or barbell), or ones own body, as in sprinting or jumping, in minimum time (9).
7) Ballistic:
Infers movement which is accelerative, of high velocity, and with actual projection into free space (10). Ballistic activities include throwing and jumping.
Multi-Sport Comparative Injury Rates
Sport Injuries (per 100 participation hours)
Schoolchild soccer 6.20
UK Rugby 1.92
South African Rugby 0.70
UK Basketball 1.03
USA Basketball 0.03
USA Athletics (Track) 0.57
UK Athletics 0.26
UK Cross-country 0.37
USA Cross-country 0.00
Fives 0.21
P.E. 0.18
Squash 0.10
USA Football 0.10
Badminton 0.05
USA Gymnastics 0.044
UK Tennis 0.07
USA Powerlifting 0.0027
USA Tennis 0.001
Rackets 0.03
USA Volleyball 0.0013
Weight Training 0.0035 (85,733 hrs)
Weightlifting 0.0017 (165,551 hrs)
References:
1) Gross, J., Fetto, J., & Rosen, E, . Musculoskeletal Examination, 1996. Cambridge, Blackwell Science, p.p.5.
2) Poliquin, C., The Poliquin Principles, 1997, Napa, Dayton Publisher’s Group, p.p. 24
3) Fleck, S.J., & Kraemer, W.J., Designing Resistance Training Programs, 1987, Champaign, Human Kinetics, p.p. 58.
4) Komi, P.V (Ed.), Strength and Power in Sport (1992). London. p.p.29
5) Komi, P.V (Ed.), Strength and Power in Sport (1992). London. p.p.169
6) Hamill, B.P., Relative safety of weightlifting and weight training. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 8(1);53-57.1994.
7) Knuttgen, H.G., Force, Work, and Power in Athletic Training. Sports Science Exchange. 8(4). 1995.
8) Norkin, C.C., & Levangie, P.K. Joint Structure & Function. F.A. Davis Company (1992), Philadelphia. p.p.17.
9) Kurz, T. Science of Sports Training. Stadion (1991), Island Pond. p.p. 85
10). Kraemer, W.J. & Newton, R.U., Muscle Power. Muscular Development. March, 1995, p.p. 130-131.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About The Author
Charles Staley...world-class strength/performance coach...his colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results.
Click here to visit Charles' site and grab your 5 FREE videos that will show you how to literally FORCE your body to build muscle, lose fat and gain strength with "Escalating Density Training," Charles' revolutionary, time-saving approach to lifting that focuses on performance NOT pain.
http://www.staleytrainingprograms.com
Friday, September 18, 2009
Mental Conditioning: If You Won't, Your Attacker Will
© COPYRIGHT 2009 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – August 2009 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
http://www.americancombato.com
http://seattlecombatives.com
DECENT human beings do not like to fight. Reasonable people do all that is possible to avoid physical violence, and one mark of a savage (a category into which violent criminals, troublemakers, and anyone who is inclined to get physical without objective justification fall neatly into) is that his mindset, lifestyle and conduct reflect the following psychological syndrome:
• He tends to enjoy physically assaulting and dominating others — and he is of the conviction that violence is really a good "solution" when one is displeased with other people for any reason, or frustrated by them in any way.
• He tends to believe that there is justification for him personally to physically assault and batter, or otherwise terrorize others, whenever disagreements or disputes arise, or whenever he observes or confronts behavior or ideas that conflict with his own. Often, he sees little wrong with the idea of using violence to take property that belongs to others; his only concern being how to get away with the act.
• He possesses extremely poor impulse control (much like an animal) and "just gets violent" whenever he "feels like it". Unlike a rational human being, the savage often "feels like it", and the savage takes that feeling as full and complete justification for becoming violent.
Precisely why some people are this way is an interesting psychiatric or psychological question. The problem is: Some people are this way. And whenever a civilized human being finds himself targeted by such a creature he is in imminent danger.
One of the big problems in developing the ability to defend oneself is developing the psychological "set" that enables one to maintain a READINESS to go into "war mode" and to physically stop a dangerous aggressor in whatever manner one must, and to achieve and to maintain a WILLINGNESS to do so. The two are related, but they are not identical.
"Readiness" refers to that state of physical, tactical, and mental "equipping" by which one has learned the mechanics of combat, and has developed practical skill and ability in the use and application of such skill and ability. In other words, the individual who is "ready" CAN do it.
"Willingness" refers to that mindset, established and "in place" that assures with reasonable certainty that when and if it ever becomes necessary to do so, one will unhesitantly use whatever one must in order to neutralize a dangerous attacker. In other words, the individual who is "willing" WILL do it.
Proper training in any form of personal defense, with or without weapons, must address this matter of readiness and willingness, because without it, physical skill can be irrelevant. After all, if you are in possession of a loaded handgun but are not technically able to employ it properly, you lack the readiness to use it. And if you are deficient in the mindset that enables you to shoot someone immediately, when a life-threatening emergency demands that some lethal felon be shot in order to prevent him from murdering either yourself or another innocent person, you lack the willingness to use it. For all practical purposes, were you to be thus deficient, your possessing a loaded firearm would do you little good. Being "armed" in such a case, would mean literally nothing.
Most people who take to the study of self-defense do have some inclination toward becoming genuinely ready and willing to act when and if they must. However, a surprising number who gravitate toward certain martial arts lack even a minimal inclination to that mental and physical state, and they believe — incorrectly — that merely by learning physical movements they will be able to defend themselves. This is not true.
Many who are to a degree "ready and willing" are not SUFFICIENTLY SO. They tend to fudge. Their motives may be honorable (ie they hate violence, they do not want to injure someone, they wish to be "absolutely certain" that causing serious injury to another is totally necessary and justified, etc.) but motives — honorable or not — do not alter FACTS. Thus, when confronted by a dangerous attacker, they HESITATE, and in consequence their skill and mindset, such as they possess either one or both, does them no good.
Here, hopefully, is the wake up call some people need:
WHILE YOU, AS A CIVILIZED AND INNOCENT PERSON BEING VICTIMIZED BY A DANGEROUS CRIMINAL ASSAILANT MIGHT NOT BE PREPARED TO RUTHLESSLY KNOCK OUT, BLIND, MAIM, CRIPPLE, OR KILL HIM (IE THE ASSAILANT) HE MOST CERTAINLY IS QUITE PREPARED TO DO THIS TO YOU! SO, IF YOU NEED TO DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST SUCH A MONSTER, HE WILL HAVE THE UPPER HAND EVERY TIME BY VIRTUE OF HIS POSSESSION OF A MINDSET THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE.
We have no time for or interest in "toughguys". People who enjoy conflict — physical or otherwise — tend often to be at root quite cowardly, and are in any case, by our standards, less than fully human. (We do not refer, when we say this, to legitimate combative sports participants. Judo and karate competitors, kick boxers, wrestlers, and boxers operate in a wholly different venue than our self. We are a combat arts professional and a self-defense teacher. We respect those who train for sport, but that is not what we do, and it is a separate matter). What we wish to emphasize here is the need for anyone who aspires to be able to defend himself to work hard at that mental conditioning that is so necessary for the realization of his goal.
If you are nonviolent and do not wish to hurt others, good for you! But consider that the context of an emergency, when some extralegal swine has decided that he will victimize you regardless of your nonviolent preferences, then it behooves you to transform yourself — to be ABLE to transform yourself — into a vicious, ruthless, unmerciful combatant. If you do not do so, there is virtually no chance that you will be able to handle a serious aggressor. You might be a technically expert practitioner of a legitimate martial art. That's not the point. The techniques might be effective — potentially. But unless you are READY and WILLING to ferociously and relentlessly go into action and take the battle into the enemy's camp (as Fairbairn put it) you are operating, if you "operate" at all, at greatly reduced efficiency.
We realized, back in the 1960's as a student of ju-jutsu and karate, that while these arts were worthy, beautiful, and somewhat applicable to self-defense, the crux of the issue when a real attack comes, is MINDSET; and proper mindset was either not addressed in classical/traditional training at all, or it was addressed in the context of winning matches, which is a kind of mental conditioning quite different from that which is required for winning in combat.
See a violent aggressor as a TARGET, not as a human being. Condition yourself to attack his eyes, his throat, to break his leg, or otherwise seriously maim him the moment you perceive yourself to be in imminent danger of serious injury. Cultivate remorselessness. This should be easy, but isn't for some people. Consider that — a) You did not ask for the situation that now threatens you or yours, and b) There is absolutely no objective reason on earth to care even slightly about the damage that anyone who attacks you ends up suffering. HE STARTED IT. YOUR WELL-BEING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A TROUBLEMAKER'S. TO HELL WITH HIM.
We cannot say if the question is standard any more, but we can say that we knew it to be standard some years ago, when the live interview portion of a prospective police trainee's screening process was given: "HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT USING YOUR SIDEARM AND ACTUALLY SHOOTING SOMEONE, IN THE LINE OF DUTY?" The exact wording varied, of course; but that was essentially the question.
While no police department wants to hire anyone who is inclined to resort to lethal force under less than extreme, emergency conditions, there is no police department anywhere that knowingly hires anyone who feels that he "couldn't" bring himself to shoot someone! Why? Because the truth is that some people need to be shot in order to stop them from doing something horrible. And if and when a law enforcement officer finds himself in a situation where in fact he cannot bring a situation to conclusion either peacefully or with some lesser degree of force, THEN HE MUST BE CAPABLE OF TAKING AN OFFENDER'S LIFE. Period. There's no "nice" way to say it or to do it.
And the exact same thing applies to every student of personal self-defense and close combat. Be like a GOOD police officer: Never use any level of force if peaceful means remain open to you to resolve any situation. Try to use means other than force whenever and for as long as possible. However, when it becomes clear to you that one or more others is unamenable to either settling something peacefully or permitting you to disengage and leave the scene without further discord, HAVE NOT THE SLIGHTEST QUALM ABOUT DOING WHATEVER INJURY MAY BE NECESSARY TO YOUR ATTACKER(S), AND DOING IT IN THE MOST VICIOUS, UNDERHANDED, FEROCIOUSLY MERCILESS MANNER POSSIBLE. ONLY SAVAGES PREFER TO USE VIOLENCE, AND WHEN THEY DO, SUCH SAVAGES DESERVE TO REAP THE FULL CONSEQUENCES OF THAT WHICH THEIR OWN OUTRAGEOUS AND EVIL ACTIONS BRING ABOUT!
When you go to war, you go to WIN. Any way you can or must. The enemy, never forget, intends fully to do whatever he can or must to achieve the violation and destruction of YOU; and that is his intended purpose.
You may not be willing to destroy an attacker. But you can bet your life on this (and many have bet foolishly before you, and have as a result lost their lives by betting wrong!) YOUR ATTACKER IS PERFECTLY WILLING TO DESTROY YOU!
Let the full message sink in.
Sword and Pen – August 2009 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
http://www.americancombato.com
http://seattlecombatives.com
DECENT human beings do not like to fight. Reasonable people do all that is possible to avoid physical violence, and one mark of a savage (a category into which violent criminals, troublemakers, and anyone who is inclined to get physical without objective justification fall neatly into) is that his mindset, lifestyle and conduct reflect the following psychological syndrome:
• He tends to enjoy physically assaulting and dominating others — and he is of the conviction that violence is really a good "solution" when one is displeased with other people for any reason, or frustrated by them in any way.
• He tends to believe that there is justification for him personally to physically assault and batter, or otherwise terrorize others, whenever disagreements or disputes arise, or whenever he observes or confronts behavior or ideas that conflict with his own. Often, he sees little wrong with the idea of using violence to take property that belongs to others; his only concern being how to get away with the act.
• He possesses extremely poor impulse control (much like an animal) and "just gets violent" whenever he "feels like it". Unlike a rational human being, the savage often "feels like it", and the savage takes that feeling as full and complete justification for becoming violent.
Precisely why some people are this way is an interesting psychiatric or psychological question. The problem is: Some people are this way. And whenever a civilized human being finds himself targeted by such a creature he is in imminent danger.
One of the big problems in developing the ability to defend oneself is developing the psychological "set" that enables one to maintain a READINESS to go into "war mode" and to physically stop a dangerous aggressor in whatever manner one must, and to achieve and to maintain a WILLINGNESS to do so. The two are related, but they are not identical.
"Readiness" refers to that state of physical, tactical, and mental "equipping" by which one has learned the mechanics of combat, and has developed practical skill and ability in the use and application of such skill and ability. In other words, the individual who is "ready" CAN do it.
"Willingness" refers to that mindset, established and "in place" that assures with reasonable certainty that when and if it ever becomes necessary to do so, one will unhesitantly use whatever one must in order to neutralize a dangerous attacker. In other words, the individual who is "willing" WILL do it.
Proper training in any form of personal defense, with or without weapons, must address this matter of readiness and willingness, because without it, physical skill can be irrelevant. After all, if you are in possession of a loaded handgun but are not technically able to employ it properly, you lack the readiness to use it. And if you are deficient in the mindset that enables you to shoot someone immediately, when a life-threatening emergency demands that some lethal felon be shot in order to prevent him from murdering either yourself or another innocent person, you lack the willingness to use it. For all practical purposes, were you to be thus deficient, your possessing a loaded firearm would do you little good. Being "armed" in such a case, would mean literally nothing.
Most people who take to the study of self-defense do have some inclination toward becoming genuinely ready and willing to act when and if they must. However, a surprising number who gravitate toward certain martial arts lack even a minimal inclination to that mental and physical state, and they believe — incorrectly — that merely by learning physical movements they will be able to defend themselves. This is not true.
Many who are to a degree "ready and willing" are not SUFFICIENTLY SO. They tend to fudge. Their motives may be honorable (ie they hate violence, they do not want to injure someone, they wish to be "absolutely certain" that causing serious injury to another is totally necessary and justified, etc.) but motives — honorable or not — do not alter FACTS. Thus, when confronted by a dangerous attacker, they HESITATE, and in consequence their skill and mindset, such as they possess either one or both, does them no good.
Here, hopefully, is the wake up call some people need:
WHILE YOU, AS A CIVILIZED AND INNOCENT PERSON BEING VICTIMIZED BY A DANGEROUS CRIMINAL ASSAILANT MIGHT NOT BE PREPARED TO RUTHLESSLY KNOCK OUT, BLIND, MAIM, CRIPPLE, OR KILL HIM (IE THE ASSAILANT) HE MOST CERTAINLY IS QUITE PREPARED TO DO THIS TO YOU! SO, IF YOU NEED TO DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST SUCH A MONSTER, HE WILL HAVE THE UPPER HAND EVERY TIME BY VIRTUE OF HIS POSSESSION OF A MINDSET THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE.
We have no time for or interest in "toughguys". People who enjoy conflict — physical or otherwise — tend often to be at root quite cowardly, and are in any case, by our standards, less than fully human. (We do not refer, when we say this, to legitimate combative sports participants. Judo and karate competitors, kick boxers, wrestlers, and boxers operate in a wholly different venue than our self. We are a combat arts professional and a self-defense teacher. We respect those who train for sport, but that is not what we do, and it is a separate matter). What we wish to emphasize here is the need for anyone who aspires to be able to defend himself to work hard at that mental conditioning that is so necessary for the realization of his goal.
If you are nonviolent and do not wish to hurt others, good for you! But consider that the context of an emergency, when some extralegal swine has decided that he will victimize you regardless of your nonviolent preferences, then it behooves you to transform yourself — to be ABLE to transform yourself — into a vicious, ruthless, unmerciful combatant. If you do not do so, there is virtually no chance that you will be able to handle a serious aggressor. You might be a technically expert practitioner of a legitimate martial art. That's not the point. The techniques might be effective — potentially. But unless you are READY and WILLING to ferociously and relentlessly go into action and take the battle into the enemy's camp (as Fairbairn put it) you are operating, if you "operate" at all, at greatly reduced efficiency.
We realized, back in the 1960's as a student of ju-jutsu and karate, that while these arts were worthy, beautiful, and somewhat applicable to self-defense, the crux of the issue when a real attack comes, is MINDSET; and proper mindset was either not addressed in classical/traditional training at all, or it was addressed in the context of winning matches, which is a kind of mental conditioning quite different from that which is required for winning in combat.
See a violent aggressor as a TARGET, not as a human being. Condition yourself to attack his eyes, his throat, to break his leg, or otherwise seriously maim him the moment you perceive yourself to be in imminent danger of serious injury. Cultivate remorselessness. This should be easy, but isn't for some people. Consider that — a) You did not ask for the situation that now threatens you or yours, and b) There is absolutely no objective reason on earth to care even slightly about the damage that anyone who attacks you ends up suffering. HE STARTED IT. YOUR WELL-BEING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A TROUBLEMAKER'S. TO HELL WITH HIM.
We cannot say if the question is standard any more, but we can say that we knew it to be standard some years ago, when the live interview portion of a prospective police trainee's screening process was given: "HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT USING YOUR SIDEARM AND ACTUALLY SHOOTING SOMEONE, IN THE LINE OF DUTY?" The exact wording varied, of course; but that was essentially the question.
While no police department wants to hire anyone who is inclined to resort to lethal force under less than extreme, emergency conditions, there is no police department anywhere that knowingly hires anyone who feels that he "couldn't" bring himself to shoot someone! Why? Because the truth is that some people need to be shot in order to stop them from doing something horrible. And if and when a law enforcement officer finds himself in a situation where in fact he cannot bring a situation to conclusion either peacefully or with some lesser degree of force, THEN HE MUST BE CAPABLE OF TAKING AN OFFENDER'S LIFE. Period. There's no "nice" way to say it or to do it.
And the exact same thing applies to every student of personal self-defense and close combat. Be like a GOOD police officer: Never use any level of force if peaceful means remain open to you to resolve any situation. Try to use means other than force whenever and for as long as possible. However, when it becomes clear to you that one or more others is unamenable to either settling something peacefully or permitting you to disengage and leave the scene without further discord, HAVE NOT THE SLIGHTEST QUALM ABOUT DOING WHATEVER INJURY MAY BE NECESSARY TO YOUR ATTACKER(S), AND DOING IT IN THE MOST VICIOUS, UNDERHANDED, FEROCIOUSLY MERCILESS MANNER POSSIBLE. ONLY SAVAGES PREFER TO USE VIOLENCE, AND WHEN THEY DO, SUCH SAVAGES DESERVE TO REAP THE FULL CONSEQUENCES OF THAT WHICH THEIR OWN OUTRAGEOUS AND EVIL ACTIONS BRING ABOUT!
When you go to war, you go to WIN. Any way you can or must. The enemy, never forget, intends fully to do whatever he can or must to achieve the violation and destruction of YOU; and that is his intended purpose.
You may not be willing to destroy an attacker. But you can bet your life on this (and many have bet foolishly before you, and have as a result lost their lives by betting wrong!) YOUR ATTACKER IS PERFECTLY WILLING TO DESTROY YOU!
Let the full message sink in.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
NO RULES — WHATEVER!
© COPYRIGHT 2009 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – July 2009 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
http://www.americancombato.com
http://seattlecombatives.com
IN self-defense the objective is survival and the neutralization of a foe when one has been subjected to a dangerous physical attack; then — usually — escape. In military hand-to-hand combat the objective is to maim or to kill the enemy, often by attacking him first. These objectives can only be achieved by a very special kind of technique, as it were, and by a very special mindset. A technique that knows and abides by no rules, that emphasizes foul, gutter tactics, and the most ferociously ruthless disregard for the adversary imaginable. A mindset that recognizes one‘s adversary merely as a target to be eliminated at any cost, and that is uninhibited and unrestrained in regard to that which it is ready, willing, and able to command the trained body of the combatant to accomplish without a moment‘s hesitation, and without an iota of mercy.
"Human decency" and hand-to-hand combat do not go together. Whether on the mean streets of a city or on some blood spattered battlefield in some Godforsaken corner of the earth, to introduce any rules, restrictions, restraints, or even the subtlest of inhibitions into the training of students is to subvert their ultimate and eventual readiness to engage an enemy and prevail.
This is the unpleasant truth about individual human combat. It is not a sport.
In recent years the phenomenon of "challenge fighting" (expressed by such events as the Ultimate Fighting Challenge, so-called Mixed Martial Arts, and Cage Fighting) has become popular in this Country. Proponents of these events, and their champions, often maintain that what they are doing and how they are doing it constitutes a kind of "litmus test" for the effectiveness and efficiency of martial arts techniques as the use of those techniques pertain to real hand-to-hand combat.
While those who excel in such challenge events are often quite formidable, and doubtless could protect themselves in many instances, it is a dangerous misconception that "that which wins in the UFC (for example) is the best of those combat and self-defense skills that may be studied for practical application". The fervor with which many tend to adhere to this belief has made it futile to engage in meaningful dialog with them, unfortunately. So, we‘ll simply say this: If challenge events are your cup of tea, then go for them. If you believe that these events foster the proper attitude, tactics, spirit, technical skills, conditioning, and mindset for unarmed close combat or armed hand-to-hand engagements in war or peacetime, fine. Hold to your beliefs, practice for those events, and we wish you the best of luck and success in your competitive career.
We are addressing those others who, without a chip on their shoulder, may be honestly wondering if participating in challenge events is indeed some sort of "ultimate" preparation for defending themselves and protecting their families, or for preparing for military combat duty.
While we fully respect everyone‘s right to his own opinion, and we respect everyone;s right to participate in and to practice whatever types of skills he wishes (so long as he does so exclusively with others who wish to participate, themselves, and does not bother others who wish to have nothing to do with his particular activity) we insist that challenge events are not a good path to take for learning real world self-defense and close combat.
Please remember this:
• FOR TECHNIQUES TO BE EFFECTIVE IN ACTUAL COMBAT THEY MUST BE VERY DESTRUCTIVE, AND RELIABLE AGAINST ASSAILANTS THAT ARE YOUR PHYSICAL SUPERIOR, AND WHO ARE DETERMINED TO KILL YOU. (You have absolutely no way on earth of determining any assailant‘s abilities, strength level, and/or intentions — so you must always assume the worst, or you will not be adequately prepared to defend yourself.
• YOUR RECOURSE TO THESE TECHNIQUES MUST BE IMMEDIATE, DONE WITH TOTAL COMMITMENT, AND WITHOUT ANY HESITATION OR MENTAL QUALMS OF DELIBERATION OR DOUBT, WHATEVER.
• YOUR TECHNIQUES MUST BE DOABLE REGARDLESS OF YOUR AGE, WHEN YOU ARE OUT OF SHAPE, AND UNDER ADVERSE TERRAIN AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES — INCLUDING (IN THE MILITARY, OR FOR SWAT TYPE POLICE OFFICERS, ETC.) WHEN WEARING CUMBERSOME FIELD SERVICE UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT.
Now, if we can agree on the above — and I suspect that those of us who appreciate what home invasions, muggings, gang beatings, holdups, rapes, kidnappings, hand-to-hand combative engagements in war, etc. and so forth really involve can agree on them — then we can be readily able to appreciate why anything goes in such situations.
Please read the following list of "forbidden actions":—
• Head butting
• Gouging the eyes
• Biting
• Hair pulling
• Hooking the nostrils or the mouth and ripping ("fish hooking")
• Violently assaulting any obvious injury that an opponent possesses
• Breaking fingers
• Striking the spinal column or smashing into the back of the head or breaking the neck
• Employing downward elbow strikes
• Striking powerfully into the throat, or locking the thyroid cartilage (windpipe) with a finger strangle
• Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh
• Seizing the clavicle
• Kicking a downed man in the head, kneeing or knee-dropping the head of a downed man, or stomping into a downed adversary
• Picking up an object (stick, rock, piece of glass, etc. etc.) and assaulting the opponent with murderous ferocity with that object
• Feigning surrender or illness or confusion and then attacking the opponent‘s weakest points with all-out strength and ferocious intensity when he falls for your subterfuge
• Throwing dirt in the opponent‘s eyes
To the best of our knowledge EVERY SINGLE ITEM ENUMERATED ABOVE IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN AND BANNED FROM THE SO-CALLED ―ANYTHING GOES‖ MATCHES (UFC, MMA, CAGE
FIGHTING, ETC). And we agree wholeheartedly that such actions should be banned and outlawed in any sport. That‘s the point.
All of those enumerated items are advocated as frontline, immediate, first resort tactical imperatives for our students, when and if they are ever forced to defend their lives against attack, or when or if they ever find themselves needing to defend their loved ones.
"Okay," someone might ask, "I can see your point about a real, life-threatening emergency requiring that such foul measures and ruthless gutter tactics be employed without compunction. However, don‘t you believe that the 'champions' and other participants in, for instance, the UFC, could easily add those skills to that which they do, if and when they ever found themselves in a real situation?"
No, we do not believe that.
People do under great stress that which has either been programmed into their motor memory or/and that which comes most naturally and reflexively, absent specific training and conditioning.
What we teach in American Combato is an INSTANT and IMMEDIATE all-out attack the moment one perceives that one is in imminent danger of injury or death. That attack must be of the most ruthlessly foul and aggressively brutal nature possible. We want to DEVASTATE the enemy — right away! We are not interested in playing around and in trying to progress through some insane ―force continuum‖: that can only result in providing an attacker with additional time and further opportunity to gain his objective of destroying US.
WE DO NOT "SQUARE OFF" WITH ANY ATTACKER, NOR IS IT EVER OUR AIM TO WAIT FOR THE "STARTING SIGNAL" AFTER WHICH WE COMMENCE TO ENGAGE THE ADVERSARY! This is SPORT, not combat — and self-defense is combat.
Competitors meet each other by mutual agreement and contest according to mutually agreed upon rules, and at a previously determined time and place. Neither can suddenly attack the other from behind, unexpectedly; nor is there the possibility of one man pulling a lethal weapon (or of attacking with a weapon at the outset), or of one encountering two or more adversaries rather than one. The terrain will be neither an "octagon" nor a "cage" — and it‘s floor will not be padded with a mat and cleared of rocks, broken glass, etc. One will not find oneself with a family member (spouse, child, etc.) whose safety one will be concerned with, in addition to one‘s own (and quite probably, over and above one‘s own). A physical attack is ILLEGAL; a contest is not. There will be no round two, and no rematch. THE INTENDED VICTIM OF AN ATTACK MUST ACT DECISIVELY AND VICIOUSLY AND RUTHLESSLY OR HE IS A GONER. And neither the law nor sporting regulations enjoin him to worry about anything except defending against his attacker.
If the above does not assist in clarifying some of the major and irreconcilable differences between sport and combat, then we cannot be of further help in assisting anyone to see the light.
To be prepared for self-defense (or for military hand-to-hand combat) one must be focused upon DISABLING and DESTROYING — and doing it right away; and that of course means knocking out, maiming, crippling, or killing, in order to prevent this from being done to oneself or to a loved one. ONE DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO PREPARE FOR THIS BY ALLOWING NONDESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS TO DILUTE THE EFFICIENCY OF ONE‘S SKILLS REPERTOIRE.
In all forms of combat simplicity is a powerful asset. A simpler firearm mechanism (such as that of the proven Colt 1911 semiautomatic .45 pistol) has been proven to be superior to more complex mechanisms (such as that of the double action 92S which, doubtless for some inane bureaucratic reasons, has been selected over the old warhorse — and has accounted for experienced fighting men purchasing their own .45‘s! But this is an aside.)
Hand-to-hand combat is the same. The simplest crippling, maiming, and killing actions work best. These skills are not intended to put a wiseguy on his back or to discourage some other nuisance from pestering one at a social gathering. THEY ARE INTENDED TO BE THERE FOR THEIR POSSESSOR WHEN NEEDED, AND WHEN A FIREARM OR OTHER ACTUAL WEAPON IS UNAVAILABLE.
Why do we continue to reiterate and to hammer away incessantly at the "combat is not the same as sport" theme? Simply because it is TRUE... and because too many in the martial arts field still fail to appreciate this simple fact. What is more, the recent advent of the "challenge" fights, and of the the groundgrappling thing has actually been aggressively misinforming the self-defense seeking public. WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AGAINST THE COMBATIVE SPORTS. Our only contention is that sporting events are not combative engagements, and that which is appropriate in one venue is NOT (regardless of who makes the claim, otherwise) appropriate in the other venue.
Combat is distinguished from contest in many ways; but perhaps the most significant is that in combat there are NO rules. None. Ever.
The individual who aspires to a level of genuine preparedness to be able to cope with extralegal violence at any time must appreciate this critical difference, and train accordingly.
Being ready to explode and destroy an attacker — in the split second that it takes to realize that one is in fact being attacked — is paramount.
You can have a competitive or a combat system. But do not deceive yourself. You cannot have both.
Sword and Pen – July 2009 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
http://www.americancombato.com
http://seattlecombatives.com
IN self-defense the objective is survival and the neutralization of a foe when one has been subjected to a dangerous physical attack; then — usually — escape. In military hand-to-hand combat the objective is to maim or to kill the enemy, often by attacking him first. These objectives can only be achieved by a very special kind of technique, as it were, and by a very special mindset. A technique that knows and abides by no rules, that emphasizes foul, gutter tactics, and the most ferociously ruthless disregard for the adversary imaginable. A mindset that recognizes one‘s adversary merely as a target to be eliminated at any cost, and that is uninhibited and unrestrained in regard to that which it is ready, willing, and able to command the trained body of the combatant to accomplish without a moment‘s hesitation, and without an iota of mercy.
"Human decency" and hand-to-hand combat do not go together. Whether on the mean streets of a city or on some blood spattered battlefield in some Godforsaken corner of the earth, to introduce any rules, restrictions, restraints, or even the subtlest of inhibitions into the training of students is to subvert their ultimate and eventual readiness to engage an enemy and prevail.
This is the unpleasant truth about individual human combat. It is not a sport.
In recent years the phenomenon of "challenge fighting" (expressed by such events as the Ultimate Fighting Challenge, so-called Mixed Martial Arts, and Cage Fighting) has become popular in this Country. Proponents of these events, and their champions, often maintain that what they are doing and how they are doing it constitutes a kind of "litmus test" for the effectiveness and efficiency of martial arts techniques as the use of those techniques pertain to real hand-to-hand combat.
While those who excel in such challenge events are often quite formidable, and doubtless could protect themselves in many instances, it is a dangerous misconception that "that which wins in the UFC (for example) is the best of those combat and self-defense skills that may be studied for practical application". The fervor with which many tend to adhere to this belief has made it futile to engage in meaningful dialog with them, unfortunately. So, we‘ll simply say this: If challenge events are your cup of tea, then go for them. If you believe that these events foster the proper attitude, tactics, spirit, technical skills, conditioning, and mindset for unarmed close combat or armed hand-to-hand engagements in war or peacetime, fine. Hold to your beliefs, practice for those events, and we wish you the best of luck and success in your competitive career.
We are addressing those others who, without a chip on their shoulder, may be honestly wondering if participating in challenge events is indeed some sort of "ultimate" preparation for defending themselves and protecting their families, or for preparing for military combat duty.
While we fully respect everyone‘s right to his own opinion, and we respect everyone;s right to participate in and to practice whatever types of skills he wishes (so long as he does so exclusively with others who wish to participate, themselves, and does not bother others who wish to have nothing to do with his particular activity) we insist that challenge events are not a good path to take for learning real world self-defense and close combat.
Please remember this:
• FOR TECHNIQUES TO BE EFFECTIVE IN ACTUAL COMBAT THEY MUST BE VERY DESTRUCTIVE, AND RELIABLE AGAINST ASSAILANTS THAT ARE YOUR PHYSICAL SUPERIOR, AND WHO ARE DETERMINED TO KILL YOU. (You have absolutely no way on earth of determining any assailant‘s abilities, strength level, and/or intentions — so you must always assume the worst, or you will not be adequately prepared to defend yourself.
• YOUR RECOURSE TO THESE TECHNIQUES MUST BE IMMEDIATE, DONE WITH TOTAL COMMITMENT, AND WITHOUT ANY HESITATION OR MENTAL QUALMS OF DELIBERATION OR DOUBT, WHATEVER.
• YOUR TECHNIQUES MUST BE DOABLE REGARDLESS OF YOUR AGE, WHEN YOU ARE OUT OF SHAPE, AND UNDER ADVERSE TERRAIN AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES — INCLUDING (IN THE MILITARY, OR FOR SWAT TYPE POLICE OFFICERS, ETC.) WHEN WEARING CUMBERSOME FIELD SERVICE UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT.
Now, if we can agree on the above — and I suspect that those of us who appreciate what home invasions, muggings, gang beatings, holdups, rapes, kidnappings, hand-to-hand combative engagements in war, etc. and so forth really involve can agree on them — then we can be readily able to appreciate why anything goes in such situations.
Please read the following list of "forbidden actions":—
• Head butting
• Gouging the eyes
• Biting
• Hair pulling
• Hooking the nostrils or the mouth and ripping ("fish hooking")
• Violently assaulting any obvious injury that an opponent possesses
• Breaking fingers
• Striking the spinal column or smashing into the back of the head or breaking the neck
• Employing downward elbow strikes
• Striking powerfully into the throat, or locking the thyroid cartilage (windpipe) with a finger strangle
• Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh
• Seizing the clavicle
• Kicking a downed man in the head, kneeing or knee-dropping the head of a downed man, or stomping into a downed adversary
• Picking up an object (stick, rock, piece of glass, etc. etc.) and assaulting the opponent with murderous ferocity with that object
• Feigning surrender or illness or confusion and then attacking the opponent‘s weakest points with all-out strength and ferocious intensity when he falls for your subterfuge
• Throwing dirt in the opponent‘s eyes
To the best of our knowledge EVERY SINGLE ITEM ENUMERATED ABOVE IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN AND BANNED FROM THE SO-CALLED ―ANYTHING GOES‖ MATCHES (UFC, MMA, CAGE
FIGHTING, ETC). And we agree wholeheartedly that such actions should be banned and outlawed in any sport. That‘s the point.
All of those enumerated items are advocated as frontline, immediate, first resort tactical imperatives for our students, when and if they are ever forced to defend their lives against attack, or when or if they ever find themselves needing to defend their loved ones.
"Okay," someone might ask, "I can see your point about a real, life-threatening emergency requiring that such foul measures and ruthless gutter tactics be employed without compunction. However, don‘t you believe that the 'champions' and other participants in, for instance, the UFC, could easily add those skills to that which they do, if and when they ever found themselves in a real situation?"
No, we do not believe that.
People do under great stress that which has either been programmed into their motor memory or/and that which comes most naturally and reflexively, absent specific training and conditioning.
What we teach in American Combato is an INSTANT and IMMEDIATE all-out attack the moment one perceives that one is in imminent danger of injury or death. That attack must be of the most ruthlessly foul and aggressively brutal nature possible. We want to DEVASTATE the enemy — right away! We are not interested in playing around and in trying to progress through some insane ―force continuum‖: that can only result in providing an attacker with additional time and further opportunity to gain his objective of destroying US.
WE DO NOT "SQUARE OFF" WITH ANY ATTACKER, NOR IS IT EVER OUR AIM TO WAIT FOR THE "STARTING SIGNAL" AFTER WHICH WE COMMENCE TO ENGAGE THE ADVERSARY! This is SPORT, not combat — and self-defense is combat.
Competitors meet each other by mutual agreement and contest according to mutually agreed upon rules, and at a previously determined time and place. Neither can suddenly attack the other from behind, unexpectedly; nor is there the possibility of one man pulling a lethal weapon (or of attacking with a weapon at the outset), or of one encountering two or more adversaries rather than one. The terrain will be neither an "octagon" nor a "cage" — and it‘s floor will not be padded with a mat and cleared of rocks, broken glass, etc. One will not find oneself with a family member (spouse, child, etc.) whose safety one will be concerned with, in addition to one‘s own (and quite probably, over and above one‘s own). A physical attack is ILLEGAL; a contest is not. There will be no round two, and no rematch. THE INTENDED VICTIM OF AN ATTACK MUST ACT DECISIVELY AND VICIOUSLY AND RUTHLESSLY OR HE IS A GONER. And neither the law nor sporting regulations enjoin him to worry about anything except defending against his attacker.
If the above does not assist in clarifying some of the major and irreconcilable differences between sport and combat, then we cannot be of further help in assisting anyone to see the light.
To be prepared for self-defense (or for military hand-to-hand combat) one must be focused upon DISABLING and DESTROYING — and doing it right away; and that of course means knocking out, maiming, crippling, or killing, in order to prevent this from being done to oneself or to a loved one. ONE DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO PREPARE FOR THIS BY ALLOWING NONDESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS TO DILUTE THE EFFICIENCY OF ONE‘S SKILLS REPERTOIRE.
In all forms of combat simplicity is a powerful asset. A simpler firearm mechanism (such as that of the proven Colt 1911 semiautomatic .45 pistol) has been proven to be superior to more complex mechanisms (such as that of the double action 92S which, doubtless for some inane bureaucratic reasons, has been selected over the old warhorse — and has accounted for experienced fighting men purchasing their own .45‘s! But this is an aside.)
Hand-to-hand combat is the same. The simplest crippling, maiming, and killing actions work best. These skills are not intended to put a wiseguy on his back or to discourage some other nuisance from pestering one at a social gathering. THEY ARE INTENDED TO BE THERE FOR THEIR POSSESSOR WHEN NEEDED, AND WHEN A FIREARM OR OTHER ACTUAL WEAPON IS UNAVAILABLE.
Why do we continue to reiterate and to hammer away incessantly at the "combat is not the same as sport" theme? Simply because it is TRUE... and because too many in the martial arts field still fail to appreciate this simple fact. What is more, the recent advent of the "challenge" fights, and of the the groundgrappling thing has actually been aggressively misinforming the self-defense seeking public. WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AGAINST THE COMBATIVE SPORTS. Our only contention is that sporting events are not combative engagements, and that which is appropriate in one venue is NOT (regardless of who makes the claim, otherwise) appropriate in the other venue.
Combat is distinguished from contest in many ways; but perhaps the most significant is that in combat there are NO rules. None. Ever.
The individual who aspires to a level of genuine preparedness to be able to cope with extralegal violence at any time must appreciate this critical difference, and train accordingly.
Being ready to explode and destroy an attacker — in the split second that it takes to realize that one is in fact being attacked — is paramount.
You can have a competitive or a combat system. But do not deceive yourself. You cannot have both.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
School Bus Assault
... and the obvious ramifications of a nonviolent response.
I'll forego a trek into the idiotic arguement that people of color cannot commit racially motivated acts. Anyone making such a statement is clearly an imbecile. I refuse to acknowledge the viewpoint that one race is above another for WHATEVER purpose.
Article
Full Video
From the available video it is quite obvious that the victim failed to take any type of reactive action. Forget fighting back, he didn't even move. Instead he sat there and absorbed blows to the face and head REPEATEDLY. One cannot seriously suggest that "he was in shock" in defense of this young mans inability to defend himself.
The inaction goes well beyond "being in shock". It goes to the heart of a significant issue within this society and perhaps the species. The gap between those who willingly use violence and those who do not. The criminal element... and YES... I WILL refer to the feckless, pathetic individuals who assailed this unfortunate dupe as CRIMINALS. I anticipate that these young men will likely be gracing our judicial system with their prescence very soon.
So... why did this young man refuse to fight back. Was he physically able? Was he phsychologically cpable? Does there exist some elemental psychiatric issue that we are not aware of? There's no mention of any physical disability, nor does the man appear to be disabled. So we will assume that he is of average health and fitness.
The question now becomes: was he CAPABLE? No. He was not. It has nothing to do with his physical abilities. The core issue appears to be that of self esteem. No self-respecting individual would allow themselves to be pummeled in this way. They would react. This poor lad does not even display the most base and primitive instincts of fight or flight. He does neither. He sets in his seat and takes first verbal (apparently) then physical assault without responding at all.
This display alone can be factored as part of the reason he was victimized to begin with. Predators KNOW which individuals are easy prey and which they would be bettter off letting alone. In many if not most situations, an individual who displays confidence will not be at the mercy of this type of vermin.
If you pay attention to the news, you'll see that those who have been victims of these types of assaults: thse occurring in public places and on public transportation, most often occcur against those who are obviously attempting to go unseen. I'm not referring to someone who attempts to be non-confrontational. No sane person wishes to engage in violence. I'm speaking of those who attempt to blend in and in many cases will actually try to appear as small, insignificant and unthreatening as possible. "Maybe if I act like discarded garbage they'll leave e alone." This type of behavior doesn't work in the animal kingdom... and that is what we are talking about here. ANIMALS! In fact, I would classify anyone who attacks another human being with no justifiable proviocation as LOWER THAN AN ANIMAL and totally undeserving of the mercy that we show such creatures. Look at the statistics of homeless people who get assaulted by this type of punk. THE ODDS ARE STACKED AGAINST YOU IF YOU THINK YOU CAN TIP-TOE AWAY FROM A VIOLENT ATTACK! You're more likely than ever to be assaulted.
Trying to "shrink yourself down" or thinking that if you ignore someone who is openly threatening you (to the approving shouts of their freinds) is not going to go away when you cower. That's precisely what they're waiting for. That shows them that you are not going to offer any resistance. This is precisely what they want... NO RESISTANCE!
What this young man should have done... was either move... standing if necessary... or respond in an attack. This incident would have been reported much differently had he launched his own attack and jammed his digits into the eye socket of that regressed jagoff! Then while his atttacker is busy dealing with his now non-fuctioning eye, rupture his testicals. The added benefit here is that this cretin would no longer retain any ability to reproduce. Society gets a bonus!
The odds are good that when the first assailant goes down, his freinds start doing the math. If their "homey" is laying on the floor of the bus, bleeding out of an eye socket orone of his ears they're not going to be too likely to step forward and violunteer to take similar punishment.
What is this infatuation with victimhood? How is it that we've reached a point where we appluad the individual who willingly facilitates their own battering? I would like to met this boys parents. I don't need to imagine what the reponse from the school district will be. There will be the obligatory suspension of the attackers. Little else will happen. I doubt if this boys parents will even attempt to sue in civil court... though the evidence is incredibly damning... and college educations aren't cheap.
I think that they SHOULD SUE! Short of a public caning, I can think of few if any satisfactory punishments for these degenerates. Their time away from school will be nothing more than a short vacation for them. I'd like to meet their parents as well. Supposedly the provocation was his shoving another students bookbag onto the floor. Yes... I can easily see that as justification for a physical assault in reprisal. He "disrespected" the other student. Well, if you're the kind of mindless troll who intentionally places your belongings on the seat to prevent someone else from being able to use it, then in my opinion, you do not deserve any respect. You're nothing more than a walking problem.
Later testimony from witnesses identified the victim as having been singled out before. Apparently he had been attacked before and hadn't fought back then either. This is the kind of kid who brings a gub to school and startas shooting random people. Better for all if he is educated in the finer elements of self-defense. Perhaps then he can manage to develop some self worth and cease being a target for every crap bag who happens across him at school. He could probably use some strength training as well.
If this individual thinks that by not defending himself he is somehow avoiding more serious injury, he is plainly delusional. Under the circumstances, being assaulted, putting up no resistance whatsoever and ending up on the floor of the vehicle to absorb even more blows... he's lucky that he wasn't crippled or killed by these dirt bags. If this had been not the amateurish school boys assault but an atttack by practiced street thugs he probably would be dead.
Get it into your heads RIGHT NOW!... that non-reaction is NOT the reaction with which you should be responding to such behavior. On the contrary... GO ABSOLUTELY BERZERKERS!!! if you are EVER unfortunate enough to be attacked. Don't concern yourself with "looking good". Concern yourself with getting in your licks... and by that I mean every single, dirty, underhanded strike that you can land. Drive them home. Put THAT scum bag on the floor of the bus... then kick his skull in. Don't "poke" at the eyes... tear them out of his head! Don't "box" the ears.. Blow out his eardrum! Tear that sucker right off of his head.
I'll forego a trek into the idiotic arguement that people of color cannot commit racially motivated acts. Anyone making such a statement is clearly an imbecile. I refuse to acknowledge the viewpoint that one race is above another for WHATEVER purpose.
Article
Full Video
From the available video it is quite obvious that the victim failed to take any type of reactive action. Forget fighting back, he didn't even move. Instead he sat there and absorbed blows to the face and head REPEATEDLY. One cannot seriously suggest that "he was in shock" in defense of this young mans inability to defend himself.
The inaction goes well beyond "being in shock". It goes to the heart of a significant issue within this society and perhaps the species. The gap between those who willingly use violence and those who do not. The criminal element... and YES... I WILL refer to the feckless, pathetic individuals who assailed this unfortunate dupe as CRIMINALS. I anticipate that these young men will likely be gracing our judicial system with their prescence very soon.
So... why did this young man refuse to fight back. Was he physically able? Was he phsychologically cpable? Does there exist some elemental psychiatric issue that we are not aware of? There's no mention of any physical disability, nor does the man appear to be disabled. So we will assume that he is of average health and fitness.
The question now becomes: was he CAPABLE? No. He was not. It has nothing to do with his physical abilities. The core issue appears to be that of self esteem. No self-respecting individual would allow themselves to be pummeled in this way. They would react. This poor lad does not even display the most base and primitive instincts of fight or flight. He does neither. He sets in his seat and takes first verbal (apparently) then physical assault without responding at all.
This display alone can be factored as part of the reason he was victimized to begin with. Predators KNOW which individuals are easy prey and which they would be bettter off letting alone. In many if not most situations, an individual who displays confidence will not be at the mercy of this type of vermin.
If you pay attention to the news, you'll see that those who have been victims of these types of assaults: thse occurring in public places and on public transportation, most often occcur against those who are obviously attempting to go unseen. I'm not referring to someone who attempts to be non-confrontational. No sane person wishes to engage in violence. I'm speaking of those who attempt to blend in and in many cases will actually try to appear as small, insignificant and unthreatening as possible. "Maybe if I act like discarded garbage they'll leave e alone." This type of behavior doesn't work in the animal kingdom... and that is what we are talking about here. ANIMALS! In fact, I would classify anyone who attacks another human being with no justifiable proviocation as LOWER THAN AN ANIMAL and totally undeserving of the mercy that we show such creatures. Look at the statistics of homeless people who get assaulted by this type of punk. THE ODDS ARE STACKED AGAINST YOU IF YOU THINK YOU CAN TIP-TOE AWAY FROM A VIOLENT ATTACK! You're more likely than ever to be assaulted.
Trying to "shrink yourself down" or thinking that if you ignore someone who is openly threatening you (to the approving shouts of their freinds) is not going to go away when you cower. That's precisely what they're waiting for. That shows them that you are not going to offer any resistance. This is precisely what they want... NO RESISTANCE!
What this young man should have done... was either move... standing if necessary... or respond in an attack. This incident would have been reported much differently had he launched his own attack and jammed his digits into the eye socket of that regressed jagoff! Then while his atttacker is busy dealing with his now non-fuctioning eye, rupture his testicals. The added benefit here is that this cretin would no longer retain any ability to reproduce. Society gets a bonus!
The odds are good that when the first assailant goes down, his freinds start doing the math. If their "homey" is laying on the floor of the bus, bleeding out of an eye socket orone of his ears they're not going to be too likely to step forward and violunteer to take similar punishment.
What is this infatuation with victimhood? How is it that we've reached a point where we appluad the individual who willingly facilitates their own battering? I would like to met this boys parents. I don't need to imagine what the reponse from the school district will be. There will be the obligatory suspension of the attackers. Little else will happen. I doubt if this boys parents will even attempt to sue in civil court... though the evidence is incredibly damning... and college educations aren't cheap.
I think that they SHOULD SUE! Short of a public caning, I can think of few if any satisfactory punishments for these degenerates. Their time away from school will be nothing more than a short vacation for them. I'd like to meet their parents as well. Supposedly the provocation was his shoving another students bookbag onto the floor. Yes... I can easily see that as justification for a physical assault in reprisal. He "disrespected" the other student. Well, if you're the kind of mindless troll who intentionally places your belongings on the seat to prevent someone else from being able to use it, then in my opinion, you do not deserve any respect. You're nothing more than a walking problem.
Later testimony from witnesses identified the victim as having been singled out before. Apparently he had been attacked before and hadn't fought back then either. This is the kind of kid who brings a gub to school and startas shooting random people. Better for all if he is educated in the finer elements of self-defense. Perhaps then he can manage to develop some self worth and cease being a target for every crap bag who happens across him at school. He could probably use some strength training as well.
If this individual thinks that by not defending himself he is somehow avoiding more serious injury, he is plainly delusional. Under the circumstances, being assaulted, putting up no resistance whatsoever and ending up on the floor of the vehicle to absorb even more blows... he's lucky that he wasn't crippled or killed by these dirt bags. If this had been not the amateurish school boys assault but an atttack by practiced street thugs he probably would be dead.
Get it into your heads RIGHT NOW!... that non-reaction is NOT the reaction with which you should be responding to such behavior. On the contrary... GO ABSOLUTELY BERZERKERS!!! if you are EVER unfortunate enough to be attacked. Don't concern yourself with "looking good". Concern yourself with getting in your licks... and by that I mean every single, dirty, underhanded strike that you can land. Drive them home. Put THAT scum bag on the floor of the bus... then kick his skull in. Don't "poke" at the eyes... tear them out of his head! Don't "box" the ears.. Blow out his eardrum! Tear that sucker right off of his head.
The "Non-Lethal" Weapon Question
© COPYRIGHT 2009 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – August 2009 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
http://www.americancombato.com
http://seattlecombatives.com
OUR position, with apologies to no one, is that modern lethal weapons are properly integral to all close combat and self-defense training that is worthy of the name. Weapons have always been part and parcel of the martial arts, with unarmed combat being, in reality, the least desirable way in which one would be expected to engage an enemy. After all, to remind anyone who may have forgotten, MARTIAL arts are ARTS OF WAR. To exclude the appropriate weaponry of the times — whether those weapons be swords, maces, spears, or bows and arrows (during feudal times), or handguns, fighting knives, and shotguns (un this 21st century) — is absurd. The martial arts (NOT THE MARTIAL "SPORTS") have as their purpose survival in combat. For the military man, this means the battlefield. For the law enforcement officer, this means street patrol. For the private citizen this means anywhere trouble may find him — at home, at work, at play, or ANYWHERE!
A very popular item today is that category of so-called "weapons" that go by the designation "non lethal weapons". They are extraordinarily popular with precisely that type of individual who needs to become trained and educated in LETHAL weaponry; i.e. the rather soft yuppiesh soul who finds violence so vulgar and crass, yet who believes that the ever-present threat of its perhaps intervening into his own "non violent life" these days, makes it desirable for him to do something . . . "just in case". But he could never, mind you, actually "kill" or "cripple" anyone! No. Not him.
The absurdity that passes for acceptable "self-defense" measures in the statistically average adult's mind(?) today is startling. "Non injurious unarmed defense skill", "Humane tactics of controlling assailants", and "Non-lethal weaponry". What foolishness.
When a predatory felon targets his prey he hardly gives a moment's thought to being "careful" and "considerate" about the amount of injury he inflicts. His concern is to GET WHAT HE WANTS, AND THEN TO GET AWAY!
The victim of any violent atrocity whose concern is both to defend himself and not to "hurt" the individual against whom he is conducting the defensive action "too badly" is — putting it as politely as possible — UNREALISTIC, IN THE EXTREME.
First and foremost, everyone should understand that "non lethal weapons" of the type that are available to private citizens over the counter or through the mail (and even, in most cases, of the type that law enforcement organizations utilize!) ARE NOT RELIABLE OR EFFECTIVE AGAINST THE MOST DANGEROUS AND DETERMINED PHYSICAL ATTACKERS. And these types are, let us hasten to remind everybody, the ones against whom a means of defense is most critical.
"But what about those demonstrations I've seen where big, strong cops are totally rendered helpless by a MACE or pepper type spray?" one might ask. Or, "Gee whiz! I got a demonstration of being tasered, and I dropped like a rock and couldn't do a damn thing!"
The answer to such questions or comments is: "YES INDEED, BUT YOU WERE NOT AN INSANE, ENRAGED, DRUG-INFLUENCED KILLER WHO WAS FANATICALLY BENT UPON DOING MURDER, WHEN YOU WERE ‘TASERED'. AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT ‘BIG, STRONG COP' CRUMPLE UP AFTER BEING SPRAYED, IT WAS DURING A DEMONSTRATION, WHEN THE COP WAS NOT MURDEROUSLY AROUSED TO A LETHAL FIGHTING PITCH, AND OR WHEN HE WAS DRIVEN BY THE INFLUENCE OF NARCOTIC SUBSTANCES, LIQUOR, OR LITERAL MADNESS."
We have been shown actual police reports where large canisters of some damn spray failed to stop a felon. The cops used the stuff because they were MANDATED TO DO SO, before — finally — resorting to more realistic measures to bring the dangerous freak that they were battling to a halt. We have also seen reports where tasering went UNNOTICED by madmen who were determined in their insane path of destructiveness, and who finally needed to be dropped by more effective means, after law enforcers "followed policy" and zapped the murderous nut before moving on to "step two".
Private citizens almost never have the luxury of acting in concert with others in order to stop their attackers; and they do not have an array of followup weapons that may be resorted to if or when their "lesser means" should fail to work effectively. The police (sometimes at the cost of injuries to themselves) do have and use these options, after their "lesser means" fail.
But the truth is that non-lethal weapons are a scam.
If you wish to be capable of offering serious resistance to armed, dangerous, potentially deadly felonious attack, then you want to be armed with firearms, knives, hardwood clubs, or tomahawks. These are the modern weapons of personal, individual close combat, and there is not a single reason on earth why sensible private citizens should not avail themselves of these protective tools.
Unarmed combat skills are necessary, and critically so. Their study boosts self-confidence through the roof, improves physical coordination and the ability to use all other hand held weapons. Their study also fosters courage and the will to fight and to prevail — vitally necessary for the self-defense student. Additionally, by mastering unarmed combat you will not see any weapon as a "crutch", and you will be much more amenable to proper, responsible weapons usage because you know that, even if you are without any manufactured weapon, you can still make good use of the equipment provided you by Nature!
But do not make the mistake —no matter what you may be told by others or read — of believing that non-lethal gadgets make sense, and that if you "don't happen to like" guns, for instance, all you need is some pepper spray or a taser device. YOU ARE PREPARING TO DIE, IF YOU BUY INTO SUCH IDIOCY.
If real weaponry intimidates you, overcome your personal weakness. Believe it: YOU WILL BE A LOT MORE INTIMIDATED IF YOUR HOME IS EVER INVADED BY TWO OR THREE SEWER RATS WHOSE INTENTION IT IS TO ROB AND KILL YOU. The sprays and the taser device won't help. A .45 automatic or a 12 gauge shotgun WILL, providing you now how to use it.
No sane human being wants to have to use a deadly weapon or deadly force in any form on another person. However, when we advocate firearms, fighting knives, and other lethal weapons for personal defense we do so precisely for that purpose and that purpose only: LAWFUL, MORAL, LEGITIMATE, ABSOLUTELY JUSTIFIABLE AND UNAVOIDABLE SELF-DEFENSE. The same reasons we advocate unarmed self-defense and the application of weaponless combatives. We personally abhor violence, do not condone it or advocate its use ever, save when circumstances not of the individual's choosing make it necessary for defense and survival.
In all honesty we remain unable to fathom how or why any intelligent, peaceful, law-abiding adult would have any problem or point of disagreement with our position. If you do, please understand that the only possible beneficiary of your timidity and reluctance will be an egregious, dangerous, violent criminal. And we believe that you do not want that ever to be the case. Neither would your loved ones, should you oe day be the bulwark standing between them and death.
Sword and Pen – August 2009 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
http://www.americancombato.com
http://seattlecombatives.com
OUR position, with apologies to no one, is that modern lethal weapons are properly integral to all close combat and self-defense training that is worthy of the name. Weapons have always been part and parcel of the martial arts, with unarmed combat being, in reality, the least desirable way in which one would be expected to engage an enemy. After all, to remind anyone who may have forgotten, MARTIAL arts are ARTS OF WAR. To exclude the appropriate weaponry of the times — whether those weapons be swords, maces, spears, or bows and arrows (during feudal times), or handguns, fighting knives, and shotguns (un this 21st century) — is absurd. The martial arts (NOT THE MARTIAL "SPORTS") have as their purpose survival in combat. For the military man, this means the battlefield. For the law enforcement officer, this means street patrol. For the private citizen this means anywhere trouble may find him — at home, at work, at play, or ANYWHERE!
A very popular item today is that category of so-called "weapons" that go by the designation "non lethal weapons". They are extraordinarily popular with precisely that type of individual who needs to become trained and educated in LETHAL weaponry; i.e. the rather soft yuppiesh soul who finds violence so vulgar and crass, yet who believes that the ever-present threat of its perhaps intervening into his own "non violent life" these days, makes it desirable for him to do something . . . "just in case". But he could never, mind you, actually "kill" or "cripple" anyone! No. Not him.
The absurdity that passes for acceptable "self-defense" measures in the statistically average adult's mind(?) today is startling. "Non injurious unarmed defense skill", "Humane tactics of controlling assailants", and "Non-lethal weaponry". What foolishness.
When a predatory felon targets his prey he hardly gives a moment's thought to being "careful" and "considerate" about the amount of injury he inflicts. His concern is to GET WHAT HE WANTS, AND THEN TO GET AWAY!
The victim of any violent atrocity whose concern is both to defend himself and not to "hurt" the individual against whom he is conducting the defensive action "too badly" is — putting it as politely as possible — UNREALISTIC, IN THE EXTREME.
First and foremost, everyone should understand that "non lethal weapons" of the type that are available to private citizens over the counter or through the mail (and even, in most cases, of the type that law enforcement organizations utilize!) ARE NOT RELIABLE OR EFFECTIVE AGAINST THE MOST DANGEROUS AND DETERMINED PHYSICAL ATTACKERS. And these types are, let us hasten to remind everybody, the ones against whom a means of defense is most critical.
"But what about those demonstrations I've seen where big, strong cops are totally rendered helpless by a MACE or pepper type spray?" one might ask. Or, "Gee whiz! I got a demonstration of being tasered, and I dropped like a rock and couldn't do a damn thing!"
The answer to such questions or comments is: "YES INDEED, BUT YOU WERE NOT AN INSANE, ENRAGED, DRUG-INFLUENCED KILLER WHO WAS FANATICALLY BENT UPON DOING MURDER, WHEN YOU WERE ‘TASERED'. AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT ‘BIG, STRONG COP' CRUMPLE UP AFTER BEING SPRAYED, IT WAS DURING A DEMONSTRATION, WHEN THE COP WAS NOT MURDEROUSLY AROUSED TO A LETHAL FIGHTING PITCH, AND OR WHEN HE WAS DRIVEN BY THE INFLUENCE OF NARCOTIC SUBSTANCES, LIQUOR, OR LITERAL MADNESS."
We have been shown actual police reports where large canisters of some damn spray failed to stop a felon. The cops used the stuff because they were MANDATED TO DO SO, before — finally — resorting to more realistic measures to bring the dangerous freak that they were battling to a halt. We have also seen reports where tasering went UNNOTICED by madmen who were determined in their insane path of destructiveness, and who finally needed to be dropped by more effective means, after law enforcers "followed policy" and zapped the murderous nut before moving on to "step two".
Private citizens almost never have the luxury of acting in concert with others in order to stop their attackers; and they do not have an array of followup weapons that may be resorted to if or when their "lesser means" should fail to work effectively. The police (sometimes at the cost of injuries to themselves) do have and use these options, after their "lesser means" fail.
But the truth is that non-lethal weapons are a scam.
If you wish to be capable of offering serious resistance to armed, dangerous, potentially deadly felonious attack, then you want to be armed with firearms, knives, hardwood clubs, or tomahawks. These are the modern weapons of personal, individual close combat, and there is not a single reason on earth why sensible private citizens should not avail themselves of these protective tools.
Unarmed combat skills are necessary, and critically so. Their study boosts self-confidence through the roof, improves physical coordination and the ability to use all other hand held weapons. Their study also fosters courage and the will to fight and to prevail — vitally necessary for the self-defense student. Additionally, by mastering unarmed combat you will not see any weapon as a "crutch", and you will be much more amenable to proper, responsible weapons usage because you know that, even if you are without any manufactured weapon, you can still make good use of the equipment provided you by Nature!
But do not make the mistake —no matter what you may be told by others or read — of believing that non-lethal gadgets make sense, and that if you "don't happen to like" guns, for instance, all you need is some pepper spray or a taser device. YOU ARE PREPARING TO DIE, IF YOU BUY INTO SUCH IDIOCY.
If real weaponry intimidates you, overcome your personal weakness. Believe it: YOU WILL BE A LOT MORE INTIMIDATED IF YOUR HOME IS EVER INVADED BY TWO OR THREE SEWER RATS WHOSE INTENTION IT IS TO ROB AND KILL YOU. The sprays and the taser device won't help. A .45 automatic or a 12 gauge shotgun WILL, providing you now how to use it.
No sane human being wants to have to use a deadly weapon or deadly force in any form on another person. However, when we advocate firearms, fighting knives, and other lethal weapons for personal defense we do so precisely for that purpose and that purpose only: LAWFUL, MORAL, LEGITIMATE, ABSOLUTELY JUSTIFIABLE AND UNAVOIDABLE SELF-DEFENSE. The same reasons we advocate unarmed self-defense and the application of weaponless combatives. We personally abhor violence, do not condone it or advocate its use ever, save when circumstances not of the individual's choosing make it necessary for defense and survival.
In all honesty we remain unable to fathom how or why any intelligent, peaceful, law-abiding adult would have any problem or point of disagreement with our position. If you do, please understand that the only possible beneficiary of your timidity and reluctance will be an egregious, dangerous, violent criminal. And we believe that you do not want that ever to be the case. Neither would your loved ones, should you oe day be the bulwark standing between them and death.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
10 Overlooked And Misunderstood Facts About Ab Training (Part Two)
By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems
http://www.staleytraining.com
Last article we discussed a number of common fallacies about ab training, including belt use, diet, and force production.
Click here to read that article if you missed it. [link to part 1 on your site here]
This week I'll continue with more little-known facts about your elusive six-pack.
Enjoy!
4. Training Your Abs Correctly Helps Your Back. Training Them Incorrectly Hurts Your Back
The average fitness wannabe will gravitate toward doing dozens, maybe hundreds of crunches per day. After all it worked for Brittney, right? There are at least two problems with this not so innocent approach to ab traning:
1) The reason you can't see your abs is- you're too fat. Why then, would you focus your training on one small muscle group that will not result in significant caloric expenditure? It's a waste of time.
2) Actually, it's worse than a waste of time- it could increase your chance of spinal injury. Here's how: Over weeks, months, and years of sit-ups and crunches, your rectus abdominus is likely to chronically shorten as an adaptation to said training. Stand up right now and contract your abs, like you're doing a standing crunch. Notice how it takes the curvature out of your lower back?
That's what can happen when you do too many crunches and sit-ups. And when you can't maintain a neutral spine, you're much more likely to injure yourself the next time you lift something heavy.
A better approach is to focus more on static training for your rectus abdominus, as well as rotational ab drills, which don't have the same potential to shorten your abs. Here are a few examples from our You Tube Channel (these links will open in new windows).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRCb3syDYos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meZfHqsab9Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWUBMXPzs2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwzLoYuIzFQ
5. You May Be Training Your Abs More Than You Think
Most people under-estimate how much work their abs receive through their regular training schedule. Squats, cleans, deadlifts, snatches, farmer's walks, kettelebell work, and even heavy dumbbell upper-body exercises result in very high levels of abdominal activation. And honestly, probably as much as you really need.
6. Your Abs Don't Need High Reps
If and when you do decide to do direct ab training, just use normal loading scenarios, just like you would with any other exercise. Where did the high-rep myth come from? Hard to say, but I suspect is has something to do with the (also) mistaken notion that you can "melt" fat off of your midsection through lots of reps- I guess people think that since high reps make them sweat, that heat helps to burn their fat off.
This myth may also stem from the idea that the abdominal muscles are composed mostly of slow-twitch fibers, and therefore benefit most from high-repetition training. While this is at least a plausible premise, I'd also suggest that muscles should be trained based on what they need to do, as opposed to what they're composed of. If you should happen to slip on some ice, your abs need to explosively contract to keep your spine in neutral. If you're a discus thrower, a golfer, a tennis player, or any other rotational athlete, you need explosive abdominal functionality.
7. There Is No Direct Metabolic Pathway Between Your Abs And The Fat That Covers Them
Or to use more conventional language, there's no such thing as isolating a muscle or sport reduction. I covered this in an earlier point, but it bears repeating: Your pattern of bodyfat deposition is genetically pre-determined. Guys tend to carry fat on their midsections (android fat deposition) and women tend to carry it on their hips and thighs (gynoid deposition). You'll always have this pattern, no matter how lean or fat you become. So just train the large muscle groups using "big" exercise and heavy weights, and maybe add some heavy cardio (if you're in the mood), and you should create the caloric deficit you'll need to get leaner.
8. The Best Way To Train Abs Is With A Stability Ball
Obviously you already know part of my argument against this idea from my earlier comments, but given the popularity of stability balls lately, I thought I'd add a few remarks on the topic here. First, I actually like the ball for certain exercises, because it 1) increases the range of motion you can employ, and 2) because it's more comfortable than the floor.
Also, the ball allows for some creative exercises, such as the ball scissors that I provided a video of earlier. With that said however, stability balls are a tool, and like all tools, they provide benefits as well as drawbacks, depending on how you use them. If, for example, you labor under the mistaken impression that you need to do thousands of crunches per week, and that the ball is better because it provides greater range of motion, all you'll do is end up shortening your trunk flexors and lose your lordodic curvature. SO the ball's OK, as long as you keep things in context.
9. The Best Ab Exercises Are The Ones You Can Really FEEEELLL…
Uhh, wrong. Muscles respond to the training stress they experience, not how that stress feels. Just like any other muscle. Whether or not you feel a particular exercise is inconsequential. Perhaps one of the most productive ab exercises is heavy squats while wearing a belt, but I doubt that you consciously feel your abs while doing those squats.
10. Your Abs Can Get Too Big If You Train Them Too Much
Unlikely. Actually, let's just go with nearly impossible. The structure and function of the abdominal musculature makes this scenario highly unlikely. If you happen to subscribe to this myth based on seeing lean bodybuilders with big guts, relax: you're looking at enlarged livers from GH and other drug use. Unless you use these substances, you won't suffer the same fate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About The Author
Charles Staley...world-class strength/performance coach...his colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results.
Click here to visit Charles' site and grab your 5 FREE videos that will show you how to literally FORCE your body to build muscle, lose fat and gain strength with "Escalating Density Training," Charles' revolutionary, time-saving approach to lifting that focuses on performance NOT pain.
http://www.staleytrainingprograms.com
Director, Staley Training Systems
http://www.staleytraining.com
Last article we discussed a number of common fallacies about ab training, including belt use, diet, and force production.
Click here to read that article if you missed it. [link to part 1 on your site here]
This week I'll continue with more little-known facts about your elusive six-pack.
Enjoy!
4. Training Your Abs Correctly Helps Your Back. Training Them Incorrectly Hurts Your Back
The average fitness wannabe will gravitate toward doing dozens, maybe hundreds of crunches per day. After all it worked for Brittney, right? There are at least two problems with this not so innocent approach to ab traning:
1) The reason you can't see your abs is- you're too fat. Why then, would you focus your training on one small muscle group that will not result in significant caloric expenditure? It's a waste of time.
2) Actually, it's worse than a waste of time- it could increase your chance of spinal injury. Here's how: Over weeks, months, and years of sit-ups and crunches, your rectus abdominus is likely to chronically shorten as an adaptation to said training. Stand up right now and contract your abs, like you're doing a standing crunch. Notice how it takes the curvature out of your lower back?
That's what can happen when you do too many crunches and sit-ups. And when you can't maintain a neutral spine, you're much more likely to injure yourself the next time you lift something heavy.
A better approach is to focus more on static training for your rectus abdominus, as well as rotational ab drills, which don't have the same potential to shorten your abs. Here are a few examples from our You Tube Channel (these links will open in new windows).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRCb3syDYos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meZfHqsab9Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWUBMXPzs2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwzLoYuIzFQ
5. You May Be Training Your Abs More Than You Think
Most people under-estimate how much work their abs receive through their regular training schedule. Squats, cleans, deadlifts, snatches, farmer's walks, kettelebell work, and even heavy dumbbell upper-body exercises result in very high levels of abdominal activation. And honestly, probably as much as you really need.
6. Your Abs Don't Need High Reps
If and when you do decide to do direct ab training, just use normal loading scenarios, just like you would with any other exercise. Where did the high-rep myth come from? Hard to say, but I suspect is has something to do with the (also) mistaken notion that you can "melt" fat off of your midsection through lots of reps- I guess people think that since high reps make them sweat, that heat helps to burn their fat off.
This myth may also stem from the idea that the abdominal muscles are composed mostly of slow-twitch fibers, and therefore benefit most from high-repetition training. While this is at least a plausible premise, I'd also suggest that muscles should be trained based on what they need to do, as opposed to what they're composed of. If you should happen to slip on some ice, your abs need to explosively contract to keep your spine in neutral. If you're a discus thrower, a golfer, a tennis player, or any other rotational athlete, you need explosive abdominal functionality.
7. There Is No Direct Metabolic Pathway Between Your Abs And The Fat That Covers Them
Or to use more conventional language, there's no such thing as isolating a muscle or sport reduction. I covered this in an earlier point, but it bears repeating: Your pattern of bodyfat deposition is genetically pre-determined. Guys tend to carry fat on their midsections (android fat deposition) and women tend to carry it on their hips and thighs (gynoid deposition). You'll always have this pattern, no matter how lean or fat you become. So just train the large muscle groups using "big" exercise and heavy weights, and maybe add some heavy cardio (if you're in the mood), and you should create the caloric deficit you'll need to get leaner.
8. The Best Way To Train Abs Is With A Stability Ball
Obviously you already know part of my argument against this idea from my earlier comments, but given the popularity of stability balls lately, I thought I'd add a few remarks on the topic here. First, I actually like the ball for certain exercises, because it 1) increases the range of motion you can employ, and 2) because it's more comfortable than the floor.
Also, the ball allows for some creative exercises, such as the ball scissors that I provided a video of earlier. With that said however, stability balls are a tool, and like all tools, they provide benefits as well as drawbacks, depending on how you use them. If, for example, you labor under the mistaken impression that you need to do thousands of crunches per week, and that the ball is better because it provides greater range of motion, all you'll do is end up shortening your trunk flexors and lose your lordodic curvature. SO the ball's OK, as long as you keep things in context.
9. The Best Ab Exercises Are The Ones You Can Really FEEEELLL…
Uhh, wrong. Muscles respond to the training stress they experience, not how that stress feels. Just like any other muscle. Whether or not you feel a particular exercise is inconsequential. Perhaps one of the most productive ab exercises is heavy squats while wearing a belt, but I doubt that you consciously feel your abs while doing those squats.
10. Your Abs Can Get Too Big If You Train Them Too Much
Unlikely. Actually, let's just go with nearly impossible. The structure and function of the abdominal musculature makes this scenario highly unlikely. If you happen to subscribe to this myth based on seeing lean bodybuilders with big guts, relax: you're looking at enlarged livers from GH and other drug use. Unless you use these substances, you won't suffer the same fate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About The Author
Charles Staley...world-class strength/performance coach...his colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results.
Click here to visit Charles' site and grab your 5 FREE videos that will show you how to literally FORCE your body to build muscle, lose fat and gain strength with "Escalating Density Training," Charles' revolutionary, time-saving approach to lifting that focuses on performance NOT pain.
http://www.staleytrainingprograms.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)