Squatting For MMA

Training
61

[quote]devildog_jim wrote:
I would hardly call most of these drugs “mind expanding.” But again, that’s not the point. So long as we hold the person responsible for what they do while on the drug, or to get the drug, there is no reason to forbid the use of the drug.

Same goes for performance enhancers. So long as you’re not breaking the rules of an organization in which you compete, why not allow them and allow companies to research newer and better ones explicitly for performance enhancement. We can even have new “unlimited leagues” to test them out.[/quote]

That would be awesome! Right now we’re in a situation where lies have clouded the issue to the point where we can’t even be sure how effective these drugs are. I’ve gotten to the point where if I see an athlete with an “enhanced performance” I knee jerk the suspicion that he’s on “performance enhancing drugs”

Not mind expanding? Even listening to someone talk about this stuff is mind expanding. God bless Eddie Bravo for putting Marijuana advocacy is the introduction to his books, and for being brave enough (unlike myself) to defy these bans.

Speaking of controversial ideas. Doesn’t anybody think that a double body-weight squat is a reasonable goal for an aspiring martial artist? You’ll find people saying the a 165 lbs bjj black belt couldn’t beat a 500lbs dead lifter, but nobody want’s to encourage that 165 lbs guy to squat or dead-lift the same weight himself to even things up? I mean this might not be a great argument but I’m surprised that the consensus seems to be so much in favor of light weights or pure calisthenics.

62

[quote]devildog_jim wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Whelanj wrote:

[quote]Xen Nova wrote:

COME RUN WITH ME<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<[/quote]

Psychedelic drug legalization, and marijuana legalization in particular, is the major human rights challenge facing my generation. War 10th Plantet![/quote]

Well I don’t know that I’d go that far, but it is a pretty silly prohibition. Especially considering that alcohol and tobacco are easily as physically and/or psychologically damaging and cause exponentially more fatalities on a yearly basis, yet are both legal.[/quote]

I hate this line of argument, because it concedes the point that the government may tell you what you may and may not put into your body. A free person should be allowed to poison themselves if they so desire, and therefore it shouldn’t matter whether caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are better worse, or just different than other drugs.
[/quote]

If that’s what you got from my post then I must have been unclear. My point is that it’s ridiculous that the government prohibits the use of some substances, even going so far as to spend millions of tax payer dollars to both attempt to prevent the distribution of such substances and incarcerate citizens who utilize them, while allowing the use of other (equally dangerous and in some cases less medically beneficial) substances.

Like you said, if they are going to control some substances, then control all substances (wouldn’t be my choice btw), or don’t control any of them. It’s all about money, not morality or politics. The alcohol and tobacco industries don’t want the competition that they know they’d get and are willing to pay big sums of money to the Federal government in lobbying to keep it like it is.

63

[quote]devildog_jim wrote:
it shouldn’t matter whether caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are better worse, or just different than other drugs.
[/quote]

I got two for this.

1.) Caffeine and alcohol, specifically coffee and bourbon, are SOOOOO way much better than other drugs.

2.) Alcohol is better because I am far funnier and more attractive when SHE is drunk.

Regards,

Robert A

64

Actual serious post:

I apologize for derailing this thread with a joke.

There is a forum for discussing political topics.

Since this is a forum that often deals with topics about self defense / defense against criminal assault I would like to offer a statement with regards to illicit substances. This is not a comment on the morality or justice regarding our laws and penal system. This is an amoral statement in recognition of an often immoral world.

Catching a charge is a good way to alter your options in life. Even a drug conviction can effect licensure for a variety of jobs or prevent success in certain occupations. Felony convictions are even more serious and can result in long term loss of legal rights and privileges. Not rolling dirty is an excellent step in pro active self defense. Avoiding catching any serious charges will likely have a far better effect on long term health and safety than improvements made to your knuckle game.

If you feel strongly about the substance question one way or another, by all means participate in the political system. Donate. Vote. However please pay the decision to commit willful civil disobedience the consideration it deserves. That way you can own your choices and the results with a full heart and clear conscience.

Final note, there is nothing to gain by memorializing any past, present, or future acts of said disobedience on an internet forum. I would also note that several members of this forum are LEO’s and many others may have jobs that put them in an unenviable position with regards to specific, as opposed to theoretical and abstract, statements about illegal acts.

Regards,

Robert A

65

[quote]Whelanj wrote:
Speaking of controversial ideas. Doesn’t anybody think that a double body-weight squat is a reasonable goal for an aspiring martial artist? You’ll find people saying the a 165 lbs bjj black belt couldn’t beat a 500lbs dead lifter, but nobody want’s to encourage that 165 lbs guy to squat or dead-lift the same weight himself to even things up? I mean this might not be a great argument but I’m surprised that the consensus seems to be so much in favor of light weights or pure calisthenics. [/quote]

I think you are miss understanding the consensus.

Again, I would like to state how fucking elegant kmcnyc’s position on this is. Get as strong as you can, until it interferes with getting skillful, or not getting exhausted during the demonstration of said skills.

No one is saying not to be strong, or that being stronger isn’t a benefit. Be the strongest you can be, while still coming in sharp and with cardio. Tired is always weak. Shitty technique is gonna need a lot of strength. When the statement is made that lifting is General Physical Preparation (GPP) for a fighter it is an acknowledgement that it is being done only to benefit the ability to develop and display the SPECIFIC skills of fighting. If the lifting beats the athlete up and takes away from training or sends them into the cage already injured it didn’t serve its purpose.

There is a big difference between a 2X and a 3X bodyweight squat or deadlift. It was the 3X figure that was being roundly doubted/criticized. Assuming you are talking about a 165 at time of lift weight and not a day before weigh in this is the difference between squatting or pulling 330lbs and 495lbs at 165.

Talented individuals may make it to the 330lb level with effort and consistent work while still making improvements across the board. I will venture a guess that very few 165lb men are going to legit squat or deadlift 495lbs with out dedication to lifting technique and programming. It is well in the realm or “video or it didn’t happen/show me the competition results” because it is such an achievement. This means fighter will have to be prioritize lifting, not fighting. The strength, stability, and range of motion it takes to move 10 fucking wheels would certainly be a boon to a fighter. However, the juice is likely not worth the squeeze.

My position is that fighters generally fight better than athletes in other sports. Deep thinker that I am. Being a physically strong FIGHTER tends to confer a good chance of success in a fight. Being a tremendously strong LIFTER does so less consistently.

Regards,

Robert A

66

[quote]Robert A wrote:

[quote]Whelanj wrote:
Speaking of controversial ideas. Doesn’t anybody think that a double body-weight squat is a reasonable goal for an aspiring martial artist? You’ll find people saying the a 165 lbs bjj black belt couldn’t beat a 500lbs dead lifter, but nobody want’s to encourage that 165 lbs guy to squat or dead-lift the same weight himself to even things up? I mean this might not be a great argument but I’m surprised that the consensus seems to be so much in favor of light weights or pure calisthenics. [/quote]

I think you are miss understanding the consensus.

Again, I would like to state how fucking elegant kmcnyc’s position on this is. Get as strong as you can, until it interferes with getting skillful, or not getting exhausted during the demonstration of said skills.

No one is saying not to be strong, or that being stronger isn’t a benefit. Be the strongest you can be, while still coming in sharp and with cardio. Tired is always weak. Shitty technique is gonna need a lot of strength. When the statement is made that lifting is General Physical Preparation (GPP) for a fighter it is an acknowledgement that it is being done only to benefit the ability to develop and display the SPECIFIC skills of fighting. If the lifting beats the athlete up and takes away from training or sends them into the cage already injured it didn’t serve its purpose.

There is a big difference between a 2X and a 3X bodyweight squat or deadlift. It was the 3X figure that was being roundly doubted/criticized. Assuming you are talking about a 165 at time of lift weight and not a day before weigh in this is the difference between squatting or pulling 330lbs and 495lbs at 165.

Talented individuals may make it to the 330lb level with effort and consistent work while still making improvements across the board. I will venture a guess that very few 165lb men are going to legit squat or deadlift 495lbs with out dedication to lifting technique and programming. It is well in the realm or “video or it didn’t happen/show me the competition results” because it is such an achievement. This means fighter will have to be prioritize lifting, not fighting. The strength, stability, and range of motion it takes to move 10 fucking wheels would certainly be a boon to a fighter. However, the juice is likely not worth the squeeze.

My position is that fighters generally fight better than athletes in other sports. Deep thinker that I am. Being a physically strong FIGHTER tends to confer a good chance of success in a fight. Being a tremendously strong LIFTER does so less consistently.

Regards,

Robert A[/quote]

Okay, that makes sense. You can’t point to a single ratio, on account of the fact that their might be a guy out there who couldn’t squat double his body weight without sacrificing too much training time, and another guy who can.

Caffeine will always be my drug of choice, and alcohol is probably irreplaceable as a date rape drug, but also I wouldn’t mind hearing the occasional color or seeing the occasional sound if it was legal and affordable to do so, if you know what I mean.

67

Ok I know I’m really, really late for this thread, but I’ll just give my two cents. I train fighters and I get the question “how much should I squat?” quite often. It becomes easier just to throw an answer there that you know won’t do too much harm than go the long route and explain to every athlete what they should and should not do.

I usually get my guys/girls when they are around 15-17 years old. Until they are around 20 to 22, I somewhat limit the amount of competitions that they do, just to get more proper training. This gives us around 10 weeks every summer to work on things like strength and some more weeks to transfer that strength into techniques.

For this reason, I like to throw an answer to the question: “how much should I squat?” and my answer is 1.7 times your bw for males. Very few actually reach that, but some that do are already over 25 years old and have had plenty time to work on their lifts, without really sacrificing any technique or sparring. Ant the ratio 1.7? Yeah, I just made that up and cannot change it anymore because so many have heard me.

But then again: I fought for 14 years and have only one time written on my log that the dude I fought was just too goddamn strong for me. I continued to compete until my thirties and could snatch 100kg and clean 135kg and got my ass handed to me by guys who could not squat 100kg to save their life.

So there. I like that my guys train and lift. I don’t really care how much if I don’t think that would improve the person in question. Sometimes they benefit a lot from improved lifts (I’m not even calling it strength because sometimes the effect is psychological), most times it’s just beneficial to train from all angles.

68

I laud the eloquent discussions that predate my response.

I can merely give my own personal anecdotes:

FWIW, I have always been a strong/explosive type athlete, even in my formative years. Strength and speed came naturally to me.

I did mostly bodyweight training and running (sprints, distance etc, pushups, pullups, abwheel) in highschool while competing in martial arts and boxing. I usually hit harder than most in my weight class, but also got tooled by some guys nowhere near my strength.

In college i started some minimalistic strength training for 4 years, 2x a week. I got stronger… and it helped my taekwondo alot. I could beat alot of people with strength and speed alone. I also trained technique and conditioning around 3 hours a day though (god bless college free time).

Post college I got into powerlifting and am now alot stronger. The returns that i get to my striking are minimal. IE my back kick is marginally harder at a 500+ squat than a 400.

I have started boxing again 1 day a week, and already tendonitis is creeping in. If I was boxing more than 1 day a week I would drastically alter my pressing volume.

2x a week is adequate for fighters, bare bones. Work technique and conditioning a ton. You still may not hit “hard” genetically as some do, but can work on timing and other attributes that facilitate putting people down. This also depends on which fight sport you choose, and the schedule of competitions.

Boxers fight frequently and on short notice. Taekwondo/judoka fight less frequently and can more effectively periodize their training.

and for the record, coffee+bourbon is the shit.

69

[quote]666Rich wrote:
I laud the eloquent discussions that predate my response.

I can merely give my own personal anecdotes:

FWIW, I have always been a strong/explosive type athlete, even in my formative years. Strength and speed came naturally to me.

I did mostly bodyweight training and running (sprints, distance etc, pushups, pullups, abwheel) in highschool while competing in martial arts and boxing. I usually hit harder than most in my weight class, but also got tooled by some guys nowhere near my strength.

In college i started some minimalistic strength training for 4 years, 2x a week. I got stronger… and it helped my taekwondo alot. I could beat alot of people with strength and speed alone. I also trained technique and conditioning around 3 hours a day though (god bless college free time).

Post college I got into powerlifting and am now alot stronger. The returns that i get to my striking are minimal. IE my back kick is marginally harder at a 500+ squat than a 400.

I have started boxing again 1 day a week, and already tendonitis is creeping in. If I was boxing more than 1 day a week I would drastically alter my pressing volume.

2x a week is adequate for fighters, bare bones. Work technique and conditioning a ton. You still may not hit “hard” genetically as some do, but can work on timing and other attributes that facilitate putting people down. This also depends on which fight sport you choose, and the schedule of competitions.

Boxers fight frequently and on short notice. Taekwondo/judoka fight less frequently and can more effectively periodize their training.

and for the record, coffee+bourbon is the shit.
[/quote]

haha great post! Especially the coffee and bourbon part.

But I completely agree. I can bench press maybe 75’s for 4 reps at this point, and my strength levels are nowhere near elite. Or even good. According to Dave Tate, I suck.

My boxing coach, however, tells me that I hit as hard as anyone he’s ever seen - and he’s sparred with the absolute best.

I’ve always been the “punchers are born, not made” guy, and I stand by that. Squat a fucking planet for all I care, you’re not going to punch harder because of it.

70

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
What sort of periodization do you use on those pulling exercises/what sort of progress have you made?
[/quote]

I do 5/3/1 twice a week, so much of my assistance work is not really the 5 x 10 that Wendler prescribes, but somewhere thereabouts.

Mostly it’s a pretty straightforward way of doing things - i.e., 3 x 15 or more for band pull aparts, higher rep rows, pullups, etc.

I’ve wrestled with a few different injuries this year, and I was making pretty good progress on bent over rows until I fucked my forearm up. Only recently, after months of pain, am I beginning to be able to do as much pulling as I should and want to.

It’s tough, because I only lift for my upper body once a week, so getting enough work to counteract days of boxing inside of 7 or 10 sets of pulling is hard to do.

That’s my log:

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/blog_sports_body_training_performance_bodybuilding_log/log_o_the_irish?pageNo=17#5159236

I welcome all opinions. [/quote]

YGPM. Also, you can handle more than 7-10 sets of back work in a week for weight training, even if you are boxing 7 days a week. It’s all in the type of training you do. For instance a number of specific corrective exercises you can do for this would not even come close to impinging on your work capacity for boxing…they’re corrective exercises. And they can be done every other day, so they help counteract the overall volume of punching.

71

[quote]Xen Nova wrote:
For what it’s worth…

…then lots of good shit…

Let’s not bad mouth any coaches, especially on a public forum. Let us instead (yes collectively if necessary) speak to him together, directly, or
The “get a bigger gas tank” analogy is often used by strength and conditioning coaches to sell products… How about we change it up… You’re both going to be the same size engine/weight, so why are you trying to get a bigger gas tank? That is really just added weight. Why not improve your gas mileage as well? THEN your bigger tank means a LOT more.[/quote]

QFT. This gets my vote for post of the thread. Xen, coming in and dropping some bombs!

This is a fantastic perspective and one that I certainly adhere to with regards to almost everything you’ve said. Thank you for taking the time to write all that out and thank you for articulating it better than I ever could!

72

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
p.s. out of fairness-

CW backpedaled quite a bit since he threw his recommendations out there.
Depending on the article, his recommendations are now way lower.
Around 2.5xbw for deadlift [b]IF[/b] you are talented.[/quote]

Yea he did, but he did lose a lot of credibility with me on that one.

Once again, this is what happens when you have someone who doesn’t fucking train fighters, writing about how to train fighters.

I rarely read anything of his after that “series.”[/quote]

Can anyone recommend a good online source of information concerning training for combat sports? It’s hard to find much on T-Nation with the exception of these forums. I’m between coaches at the moment. Thank you.

73

This really is like a unifying theory of Combat Sport Preparation:

[quote]
Robert A:
Again, I would like to state how fucking elegant kmcnyc’s position on this is:

74

[quote]Ambugaton wrote:

Can anyone recommend a good online source of information concerning training for combat sports? It’s hard to find much on T-Nation with the exception of these forums. I’m between coaches at the moment. Thank you. [/quote]

This would be a great thread, give me some time to think about it

75

here is one all the cool kids like

adrenalineperformancecenter

76

hmm as a fighter myself i havent seen that increasing my maximal strength has hindered me at all in MMA. as long as you keep up your conditioning and mobility work, getting stronger is ALWAYS better.

77

[quote]EllisUFC wrote:
hmm as a fighter myself i havent seen that increasing my maximal strength has hindered me at all in MMA. as long as you keep up your conditioning and mobility work, getting stronger is ALWAYS better.

[/quote]

What does your training schedule/split look like?

78

Great fucking thread and excellent posts by the usual greats Xen Nova, Fighting Irish, Robert A, schwarzfahrer, etc.

Xen, what does your schedule look like? I’m currently lifting 3 times a week. Took a break from fighting. Looking to get back in to it. Looking at boxing a few times a week this summer and then throw in jiu jitsu and judo next september.

79

Being that fighting is such a complex sport the best advice is to lift enough to fill in your weaknesses. If you cant lift a guy for a slam when he has you in a triangle then you need to strengthen your squat and deadlift. Norms for sports like football usually have pretty dense pockets but MMA lifting norms are all over the place. Practical lifting movements will get you better results in the ring/octagon.

Just remember to train in the power/strength range of reps so you dont hypertrophy too much and accidentally bump a weight class. Unless thats your goal of course, then keep it in that 12-15 rep range.

Also on a side note I find retaining my flexibility and ROM in my shoulder, knee, etc. far outweighs muscle hypertrophy in BJJ.