Do you really get fitter/stronger from exercising?

RNC

Just something I've been thinking about since starting bjj etc bout 9 months ago, do we really get that much fitter from exercising or is it all about becoming more energy efficient with better technique?

Michael 09

Yes.

Hanley

RNC wrote: »

Just something I've been thinking about since starting bjj etc bout 9 months ago, do we really get that much fitter from exercising or is it all about becoming more energy efficient with better technique?

BJJ - mostly tekkers.

Resistance/cardio - definite physiological adaptations.

ferike1

Hanley

...guys, he's talking about BJJ here. The rate your "fitness" improves is mind boggling. Mostly because you learn what you're doing and don't just waste energy trying to push the guy off you.

UnknownSpecies

How did you know that :P Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is it? I don't understand how, regardless of what sort of training it is, you wouldn't get fitter/stronger from intense physical exercise like that. Not challenging you, it's just something I can't quite grasp, interested to hear more.

Hanley

RNC wrote: »

Just something I've been thinking about since starting bjj etc bout 9 months ago, do we really get that much fitter from exercising or is it all about becoming more energy efficient with better technique?

dorgasm wrote: »

How did you know that :P Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is it? I don't understand how, regardless of what sort of training it is, you wouldn't get fitter/stronger from intense physical exercise like that. Not challenging you, it's just something I can't quite grasp, interested to hear more.

Sooo....

ferike1 wrote: »

Anywho. BJJ is mostly about coordinating movement and using leverage and frames to create space. it's not about pushing and pulling guys off you. You'll NEVER outmuscle someone even half decent of a similar weight. I came into it with a 240+kg DL, 200+kg squat and a pretty good anerobic engine and was routinely smashed because I was too tight and tense, tried to muscle out of everything and was constantly jacked up trying to move.

It's the illusion of fitness that happens. Because you know when to push, and when to back off, and how to position yourself to the other guy so you exert the minimum of force, the rolls get easier.

Sure, you get fitter and stronger to an extent, but my strength has gone backwards as my BJJ has come on leaps and bounds. Riddle me that

UnknownSpecies

Wow, I feel stupid :P

I suppose that does make sense, I didn't really have a great concept of what BJJ really is. Do you think it's actually served a good purpose to you? Was it directly responsible to your loss in strength?

Hanley

dorgasm wrote: »

Do you think it's actually served a good purpose to you?

The purpose was to get good at, and enjoy, BJJ - so yup, did a great job

Was it directly responsible to your loss in strength?

Nope, not lifting was directly responsible for that. I'm sure I could have managed to maintain a substantial amount, but as an indication, in December 2010 I squatted 240kg and deadlifted 260kg, taking a shot at 272kg. I started BJJ in Jan 2011 and didn't do a huge amount of lifting.

Hit the gym at the start of June, am up to a 165kg squat and a 190kg x3 deadlift. I'm around 10kg lighter, and making jumps weekly so I expect respectable numbers again soon.

UnknownSpecies

Ah I see, didn't realise you had stopped lifting at the same time. Impressive numbers though. I'm going through the whole back to lifting now. Haven't done anything serious in 3 years, it's pretty embarrassing at the moment considering how much I've regressed.

RNC

Hanley wrote: »

...guys, he's talking about BJJ here. The rate your "fitness" improves is mind boggling. Mostly because you learn what you're doing and don't just waste energy trying to push the guy off you.

Ye I was mainly talking bout bjj but I was thinking other sports and actives tat are techi based (swimming golf etc), also things like bench n squat, good way to improve these is to improve tech and gain weight without the physiological adaptations?

mushykeogh

well with swimming you can have impressive squat and pull up no.s but it wont help much if your technique is pants!

Mellor

mushykeogh wrote: »

well with swimming you can have impressive squat and pull up no.s but it wont help much if your technique is pants!

But swimming isn't strength related, its a cardio sport. Just like squat and bench won't help long distance running.


BJJ and golf are technical. Most of your advancment will come from getting better at the technique.

Weights are strength based, (except for oly lifting which is strength plus tekkers). There is still technique involved correct issue will give immediate increases, but its not the main factor in progress. Eg, Hanleys squat and deadlift numbers fell due to strength dropping off, not because he forgot how to squat.

Swimming and running are fitness based. there is a technique there also obviously, but gains over a period are generally due to increased fitness. (If you are talking about shorter distances its prob better described as power)




The above is very general, but you get the idea.

UnknownSpecies

Ah now I get the point. The golf reference clicked it with me It's like, I can't drive the ball very far yet my buddy who's half my size and strength can smack the thing twice as far as me. I play off 16, he's off 4. All technique.

mushykeogh

every turn in swimming is strength based, 15 metres under the water pushing from the wall, so strength is critical here. Distance per stroke is also crucial so allied with technique it is very important.

Mellor

mushykeogh wrote: »

every turn in swimming is strength based, 15 metres under the water pushing from the wall, so strength is critical here. Distance per stroke is also crucial so allied with technique it is very important.

What point are you trying to make exactly?
Because nobody has disagreed with the above. There's technique involved with every sport. Especially when first learning. You can break any sport down into specific examples of anything. That's not what we are talking about.
BTW, the turns aren't just about the push off the wall. They kick under water too remember. It's also not 15 metres, they'd be left behind, but we're getting off topic here.

The OP was talking about gains being solely down to improving technique. If a swimmer spends 100 hours in the pool over 10 weeks - the primary source of improvement will be down to increased fitness/capacity for work. With strength and technique being secondary.

Hanley

Swimming, for a beginner is 100% skill based. I struggle to get 25m and I'm pretty strong and am alright cardio wise.

And I'm not alone with that.

UnknownSpecies

Absolutely. It takes a few weeks to get used to swimming. You could flap about for a few lengths at the start and then progress to swimming 20+ laps and both would feel as tiring.

mushykeogh

Mellor wrote: »

But swimming isn't strength related, its a cardio sport. Just like squat and bench won't help long distance running.

Mellor wrote: »

What point are you trying to make exactly?
Because nobody has disagreed with the above.

Just that in certain events, a strength base is vital, once the technique is there of course, so far me there is a huge strength related component to swimming.

Bench wont help long distance running much, but i id argue that squats will, in fact i know of quite a few distance runners who squat.

BTW, the turns aren't just about the push off the wall. They kick under water too remember. It's also not 15 metres, they'd be left behind.

Well, it is fifteen meters, if your under the water after 15 metres, you are disqualified!

Mellor

Hanley wrote: »

Swimming, for a beginner is 100% skill based. I struggle to get 25m and I'm pretty strong and am alright cardio wise.

And I'm not alone with that.

Of course. I referred to beginners in my my post. You have to have the technique. Just like learning to cycle for example.

mushykeogh wrote: »

Just that in certain events, a strength base is vital, once the technique is there of course, so far me there is a huge strength related component to swimming.

I understand what you mean, its a lot about power, especially over 100 metres. And being stronger means each stroke drives you more. But events are minutes not seconds long. So more aerobic than anaerobic. I suppose there would be a difference in that regard depend on the events. 100m vrs 400m vrs 1500m

Bench wont help long distance running much, but i id argue that squats will, in fact i know of quite a few distance runners who squat.

Possibly. But if a runner gets his 10k time from 30mins down to 28 minutes, that increase is most down to increase fitness/aerobic capacity, and increases to his squat are responsible for minor gains.

Well, it is fifteen meters, if your under the water after 15 metres, you are disqualified!

15 metres is the max. But most swimmers will surface much sooner for speed.

Arthurdaly

The OP was talking about gains being solely down to improving technique. If a swimmer spends 100 hours in the pool over 10 weeks - the primary source of improvement will be down to increased fitness/capacity for work. With strength and technique being secondary.[/QUOTE]


Suggest you read the thread title first

Mellor

Arthurdaly wrote: »

Suggest you read the thread title first

I think you need to go back and read it yourself. As your post makes no sense what so ever.

mushykeogh

Mellor wrote: »

15 metres is the max. But most swimmers will surface much sooner for speed.

Off topic now, but the best swimmers will stay under till close to the 15 metre mark. All depends on how good they are, (Phelps would often push it as close to the 15 metres as possible). Less drag under the water in a good streamlined position than on the surface.

In fact, i think the 15 m rule was introduced in the late 80s after some dude broke the WR for backstoke by staying under the surface for over 25 metres i think?.

Mellor

mushykeogh wrote: »

In fact, i think the 15 m rule was introduced in the late 80s after some dude broke the WR for backstoke by staying under the surface for over 25 metres i think?.

yeah. Was in 88 in the Olympics. Two swimmers did it swimming 1/3 of the race underwater.
The strange thing is that the 15m rule was in place since the 50s for breast stroke after a swimmer swam almost the full 100m underwater.