How does a HW gain strength?

[KennisTheMenace]

If you read Elorys post in conjunction with Hedonistic's you've got your answer. A lot of the time different people don't give conflicting advice, they just give different parts of the same answer.

I'll add my part by saying that it is important to keep track of your calories and make sure you eat enough. Even if you do not lift weights, if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. A part of that weight is going to be fat, but a part of that is going to be muscle as well. Sure if you lift weights and work out a bigger part of that will be muscle, but if you don't it's not like you will gain 100% fat. You won't be very easy on the eyes, but I feel nutrition is the most important aspect, especially if your time is limited.

The opposite however is true: if you start lifting weights now -regardless of how you do it - and you don't change your nutrition to sustain it, you will start losing weight because your maintenance level will increase while your calorie intake does not. So either way nutrition is the most important aspect.

I meant conflicting in the sense of a heavy weight / low rep routine vs. high rep body weight exercises.

To give some illustration of my specific issue, For my first two fights I swore by rolling into the gym after my boxing training and hitting 100 pull-ups, 100 dips, 300 push-ups, 300 abs. I'd throw in weightlifting with a theory around low weight and high reps (20-25). Combined with my 3 day per week sprint training up a big hill and vegan diet (I was on a vegan protein powder as well), I nearly fell out of the weight class by weighing in at 211 lbs and 215lbs before each fight. Given that I'm 6'4", I figured I was doing something wrong, but since I had good cardio and won the decisions I thought my workout routine was right.

I had to take a layoff and I'm now at 250lbs, which I think is awesome, but I'd like to get rid of the non-functional weight around my stomach obviously and lower the bodyfat and just maximizing my strength and muscle while keeping this weight so I can have some KO power in my next bout. I'm really not trying to **** this up now that I have the weight and can be a big heavyweight, but just can't find solid answers on this balancing act that occurs with the body.

[Facade]

I meant conflicting in the sense of a heavy weight / low rep routine vs. high rep body weight exercises.

To give some illustration of my specific issue, For my first two fights I swore by rolling into the gym after my boxing training and hitting 100 pull-ups, 100 dips, 300 push-ups, 300 abs. I'd throw in weightlifting with a theory around low weight and high reps (20-25). Combined with my 3 day per week sprint training up a big hill and vegan diet (I was on a vegan protein powder as well), I nearly fell out of the weight class by weighing in at 211 lbs and 215lbs before each fight. Given that I'm 6'4", I figured I was doing something wrong, but since I had good cardio and won the decisions I thought my workout routine was right.

I had to take a layoff and I'm now at 250lbs, which I think is awesome, but I'd like to get rid of the non-functional weight around my stomach obviously and lower the bodyfat and just maximizing my strength and muscle while keeping this weight so I can have some KO power in my next bout. I'm really not trying to **** this up now that I have the weight and can be a big heavyweight, but just can't find solid answers on this balancing act that occurs with the body.

I understand you're frustrated, but I hope this topic has made things a little clearer though. If not, here are some general points:

In general the rule of thumb for reps is: 3-5 is associated with strength, 8-12 is associated for hypertrophy. Anything above that is mostly categorized as cardio/endurance. So in your specific case. If you for example were at a point where 4x8 pull ups come easy to you, you should find a way to add weight, not add repetitions.

However none of that has anything to do with the reason you lost so much weight earlier. The nutrition part is where it goes wrong. Like I said before: you have to eat. Even though 100 pull ups etc. isn't the best routine i've ever heard of, you wouldn't have lost as much weight as you did if you increased your calorie intake to match your maintenance calorie need.

So I repeat: calorie surplus is gain weight, calorie maintenance (maintenance has exercises included) is sustain weight, calorie deficit is lose weight. This last part really is the most important thing there is. There are calculators to find out what your maintenance is (be sure not to mistake BMR with maintenance). If you have been at the same weight for a while you could also just map what you eat by calories. That calorie intake is probably a good estimate of your maintenance calorie need with your current level of exercise.

Finally, as you plan on losing fat and building muscle: in general it is hard or even impossible to build muscle while you are cutting weight unless you are a beginner or have a very high fat percentage. So in your case you have to choose what you want first: cut fat first then bulk up or just bulk up and cut fat later. Both involve resistance training the only difference is a calorie deficit in cut phase and a calorie surplus in bulk phase.

[ShoulderRoll]

Lifting heavy weight for low reps isn't the only way. Here's heavyweight Jack Dempsey:








Some of the things he did included jumping rope, shadow boxing, hitting the heavy bag, situps, pushups, pull ups, chopping firewood, and swinging a sledgehammer.

[KennisTheMenace]

So in your specific case. If you for example were at a point where 4x8 pull ups come easy to you, you should find a way to add weight, not add repetitions.

However none of that has anything to do with the reason you lost so much weight earlier. The nutrition part is where it goes wrong. Like I said before: you have to eat. Even though 100 pull ups etc. isn't the best routine i've ever heard of, you wouldn't have lost as much weight as you did if you increased your calorie intake to match your maintenance calorie need.

So I repeat: calorie surplus is gain weight, calorie maintenance (maintenance has exercises included) is sustain weight, calorie deficit is lose weight. This last part really is the most important thing there is. There are calculators to find out what your maintenance is (be sure not to mistake BMR with maintenance). If you have been at the same weight for a while you could also just map what you eat by calories. That calorie intake is probably a good estimate of your maintenance calorie need with your current level of exercise.

Finally, as you plan on losing fat and building muscle: in general it is hard or even impossible to build muscle while you are cutting weight unless you are a beginner or have a very high fat percentage. So in your case you have to choose what you want first: cut fat first then bulk up or just bulk up and cut fat later. Both involve resistance training the only difference is a calorie deficit in cut phase and a calorie surplus in bulk phase.

Thanks. I'm not familiar with what BMR is and doing calorie calculations, but that demystifies for me why I was getting so little. Guessing if I scheduled a fitness training session at any gym they'd be able to help me with determining how much I need to eat. I thought it would be possible to keep getting more muscular while shedding body fat on my stomach, but I see that it's two different strategies. I know I'm not as strong in my workouts as I was before, and I have stomach fat, so I might be a candidate to build muscle and lose fat at the same time.

At what point, if any, is there value in doing an excessive amount of repetitions for cardio/endurance in muscles?

[Elroy1]

Kennis;

I would highly recommend you build up with lower weight and higher reps!

I am at odds with the other man to a certain point in that I would not lift heavy! Although I'll admit, heavy is the quickest way to get strong, it might not be the most effective for boxing, even in the clinch which is a highly stamina based affair to some extent too.

You CAN lift heavy as some top pros do but again it's periodised and fraught with injuries etc. and isn't worth it.

It takes longer to build up with lighter weights but the benefits are..

- The muscle is serviced by much greater blood supply, therefore more conducive to stamina.

- The muscle lasts longer without stimulus. Muscle gained quickly also goes quickly.

- Less injuries

- Less stiffness joints and shortening of muscles allowing more fluid movements.

- MOST importantly it does not mess up your neural pathways like heavy weights do.

The last point will be contested by many lifter/boxers. They will try to sell the idea that heavy lifting stimulates the fast twitch fibres to hypertrophy which in turn can produce greater explosiveness and speed and power when activated. This is both right and wrong depending on context but is always misunderstood.

Training under heavy weights allows only slow movement. It will train you to be explosive under loading. But a hard punch doesn't carry any load. The only way to emphasise the aspect of speed really is to practice sharp snappy movements which weight lifting does not provide. Another way to look at it is that heavy weights train you to "push faster". But a punch is not a push at all, you should never push your punches through the range of motion. It forces you to apply tension throughout the movement whereas what we need is the exact OPPOSITE, to RELAX through the movement. This is what ppl mean when they say that weight lifting slows you down.

The muscle adds weight which increases crude power but the neural structure heavy lifts develop has a negative affect on power too.

You should never use heavy weights to develop the "frontal" muscles that most people envision necessary the movement of the punch. But you can benefit from using heavy weights to strengthen the "posterior" muscles because these muscles are for "bracing" the impact of the punch.

The impact and transfer of power is the ONLY time your body should momentarily be placed under max tension.

Always keep this in mind when selecting exercises for boxing if your going to lift heavy and periodise as well.

Apart from that, use lower weight where you can to avoid the issue altogether.

[Facade]

@Kennis: I think it is not so much a question of value. In boxing and long fights I can imagine there is value to having good endurance in your muscles that you predominantly use. What I am referring to however is that when you train that aspect (cardio), you don't train for strength. So when you do pull ups a 100 times in 1 set, you train endurance but you have already gained the strength to make that pull up, doing a 100 won't improve that particular aspect any further. They are just 2 different methods, with 2 different purposes. By that statement I don't suggest that the cardio aspect of it is useless or anything though.

@elroy, the point is often made by boxers that working with heavy weights slows you down. Although I do agree with you that your actual weight and technique matters more than your actual strength when punching, I haven't seen any science that suggests that working with weights slows you down. I'm wondering if you can back it up with hard facts?

As for your theory in general: your argument seems to be based on the assumption that weight lifting teaches you to push and tense up. It therefore does not teach you how to snap your punches. That is true and I can see how it would therefore (apart from the added weight) not increase your punching power.

However, to therefore also assume that lifting weights will actually hinder it, does not make any sense. Not helping a certain aspect does not equal hindering that same aspect. Also, your theory would only hold ground if people were to throw punches like they lift weights. That seems unlikely and also does not acknowledge the fact that there is a lot more to snappy punching then what routine you put the executing muscles through.

The only real downside I see to lifting weights, is the fact you will get sore and that will slow you down in boxing. So I do agree with you that periodising is smart.

[Elroy1]

Yeah façade, it is a complex issue and the answer isn't exactly clear cut.

I just feel that the muscle built through a bench press at maximum weight trains the nervous pathways to contract both agonistic and antagonistic pathways at the same time in order not just to move the weight but to brace your body against it too. At lighter weights your antogonists do not need to be fired up. It's like you are training your body to resist the movement at the same time. You are training your muscles to maintain tension whether you consciously try not to push through the movement or not.

I do not object so strongly to training the posterior muscles in a max strength type of way, like lats, back, even triceps (as in dips and pullovers where they work in conjunction with the lats like in a punch. There are also the muscles that work with gravity, not against it. I say this because these muscles are not the prime movers in a punch but are there to brace against it.

Anyhow façade, this is why I stress for the guy the NEED for periodization IF you want to lift heavy, which I agree is the fastest way to get stronger, definitely.

However, most fighters will not use a periodised program, only a top ammy or pro fighter has the luxury. The average boxer will train similarly most of the time and get a fight when they can. For them I see it more sensible to build themselves up with light weights and avoid the issues highlighted altogether.

I agree that total strength is best developed through heavy lifts. But the value of a more endurance and light lifting program is of comparable quality in the clinch and also in crude punch power.

Throw a punch at a bag as hard as you can, the maximum contraction of your muscles no matter how hard the shot is not more than is achieved in contraction when using just your body weight in a dip or pull up for example. You just wont get the same development of muscle as fast.

I'm not against heavy weights per se, I would just want to analyse what your criteria is as a fighter first and weigh up the pros and cons of each.

I used to lift heavy all the time and looked like a body builder. Not I am not as strong but I hit harder than I did then by far. In fact, at the health club I train at now with a bag, I am about the only one who hits it. When I do, all the big lumps that visibly make me look crap stop what they are doing and come to watch me. They cannot believe that a fairly average looking guy can do that with his body.

[KennisTheMenace]

Thanks guys for the debate, bringing up some good points.

Just to clarify, I was not doing 1x100 on pull-ups. I wish, lol, I'd be a beast. I was rolling in and doing 100 pull-ups over a period of time...so I might hit 10, go to the drinking fountain, come back and do 10, drinking fountain, 8, drinking fountain...

[HedonisticFrog]

Kennis;

I would highly recommend you build up with lower weight and higher reps!

I am at odds with the other man to a certain point in that I would not lift heavy! Although I'll admit, heavy is the quickest way to get strong, it might not be the most effective for boxing, even in the clinch which is a highly stamina based affair to some extent too.

You CAN lift heavy as some top pros do but again it's periodised and fraught with injuries etc. and isn't worth it.

It takes longer to build up with lighter weights but the benefits are..

- The muscle is serviced by much greater blood supply, therefore more conducive to stamina.

- The muscle lasts longer without stimulus. Muscle gained quickly also goes quickly.

- Less injuries

- Less stiffness joints and shortening of muscles allowing more fluid movements.

- MOST importantly it does not mess up your neural pathways like heavy weights do.

The last point will be contested by many lifter/boxers. They will try to sell the idea that heavy lifting stimulates the fast twitch fibres to hypertrophy which in turn can produce greater explosiveness and speed and power when activated. This is both right and wrong depending on context but is always misunderstood.

Training under heavy weights allows only slow movement. It will train you to be explosive under loading. But a hard punch doesn't carry any load. The only way to emphasise the aspect of speed really is to practice sharp snappy movements which weight lifting does not provide. Another way to look at it is that heavy weights train you to "push faster". But a punch is not a push at all, you should never push your punches through the range of motion. It forces you to apply tension throughout the movement whereas what we need is the exact OPPOSITE, to RELAX through the movement. This is what ppl mean when they say that weight lifting slows you down.

The muscle adds weight which increases crude power but the neural structure heavy lifts develop has a negative affect on power too.

You should never use heavy weights to develop the "frontal" muscles that most people envision necessary the movement of the punch. But you can benefit from using heavy weights to strengthen the "posterior" muscles because these muscles are for "bracing" the impact of the punch.

The impact and transfer of power is the ONLY time your body should momentarily be placed under max tension.

Always keep this in mind when selecting exercises for boxing if your going to lift heavy and periodise as well.

Apart from that, use lower weight where you can to avoid the issue altogether.

First of all the injury rate of powerlifting is very low. It's actually less than badmitton. http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Safety.html

Even if very high reps does increase angiogenesis it doesn't matter since your the blood vessels in your muscles are not the limiting factor in cardio.
http://jp.physoc.org/content/366/1/2...e2=tf_ipsecsha

Strength training actually increases your range of motion if you come from a sedentary background. It certainly won't reduce your range of motion like you claim.
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article...engthflex.html

The only reason someone would tense up when punching is if you don't know how to throw a punch. Even when I was doing purely bodybuilding my hand speed was fast since I was strong and knew how to throw a punch. Now that I do powerlifting with calisthenics such as one armed pushups with a 10lb plate behind my back my punches are even faster.

The only weightlifting program that adds unnecessary mass is bodybuilding since some of the muscle mass gained from it is mitochondria which doesn't increase strength. Nobody here is advocating that though.

There's plenty of scientific research out there so there's no need for arguments based solely on opinion.

[Facade]

@elroy:
whether or not there is an actual need for the extra muscle is up for debate and that's for Kennis himself to decide. I personally see no role in throwing punches so I think we are in agreement on that aspect. If throwing hard punches would only require people to work out everyone would do it.

As said though, not helping does not equal hurting. But if you disagree, then that's fine to. If personal experience has led you to believe so then I can understand that. Whatever side Kennis eventually chooses though: the nutrition is most important. If that's not in order then none of it matters.