"weight lifting should not hinder your main sport"

[Bedlam]

Weight won't slow you down but it will hinder cardio, the more muscle mass you have the more blood your cardiovascular system has to transport to oxidise thoe areas, meaning you will tire far quicker than someone less muscular.

Then don't lift to gain mass, and don't eat more than you should.

 

[XTrainer]

See, this is one of the worries. 3-4 days, that will mean I am doing my thaibox lessons during recovery time? If that's the case, I am never 100% during a thaibox lesson and that can't be good right?


So, cut out the bullshit, do the: overhead press, bench press, deadlift, pull ups and squats.. and be done with it. Probably a max of 2 times a week, that's enough for me at this point, see how it goes first

Any people really object? Because the first posters said its kind of useless to do weight lifting, and then another guy said thats not true..

And now I am at a point I see I do to much at the gym, but still not absolutely sure how much weight lifting will do for me (i do think it has some benefits, but I want to know more from the camp that says: weight lifting is kind of useless in thaiboxing)

-You need to understand that you can't be at 100% for all attributes all the time...trust me, I've tried and failed miserably. The best you can do is plan to "peak" at competition time. But, yes, the process of training is inherently taxing and you won't be at 100% for Thai (and likewise, the demands of your Thai will detract from your lifting). But that's not important. The important thing is moving the threshold of where "100%" is. Do understand what I mean by that? I was not at 100% when I went into the gym yesterday. However, I lifted much more weight than I ever would have at 100% of my capacity if I had never started strength training...much more than 100% of my capacity last year, for that matter.

In short, you can't look at everyday training (and by training, I mean both Thai and S&C) as a competition you need to be ready and rested for. If you never subject yourself to stresses (which implies being below 100% at times), you will never improve.

You need to look at everyday training as preparation for the competition.

-Now, as for the routine itself, look here:
FAQ:The Program - Starting Strength Wiki

Most forms of weightlifting won't give you functional strength though, and is therefore not as relevant to MT as you seem to think. A few days ago I clinched with a bodybuilder who has about 15kg on me and a threw him off his feet 4 times, I haven't lifted a weight in years.
The only way to get power into your shots is to polish your technique, you can be the world's strongest man but if you don't have good technique then your movement will be laboured, meaning you will have no power. Go watch Pudz try punch.

There's no such thing as "functional" strength. There's strength, and its absence (weakness). I'm going to guess the guy you threw around is new. If he is strong (and size is not strength), I'm also going to guess that, as he masters the basics, he'll put his strength to increasingly better use. He might begin giving you problems faster than you would expect. It's a learning curve I see all the time in BJJ/MMA. When they're rank beginners, strong guys aren't all that much harder to deal with than weak guys, because they have no idea how to use their strength. The attribute of strength is essentially neutralized by lack of any way to apply it. After six months of training, however, the strong guys can be handful. Not so for the weak guys--they have the skill set, but they can't apply it.

Also, I hope this doesn't come across as harsh, but why do you think Pudz can compete at a much higher level than you, despite having extremely limited martial arts experience? The answer is strength, obviously.

weight lifting slows you doen, thats that

No.

 

[flak]

TS, it sounds like you need to think carefully about three questions:

First, do you need to cut back on your activities, to have more time for school? Or just to be less busy?

Second, what are the major weaknesses in your MT game?

Third, is your lifting addressing the weaknesses in your MT game?

If the weaknesses in your MT game have little relevance to strength, then maybe you should cut back on the lifting, if only to save time.

Have you talked to MT your coach and asked "what do I need to do to improve?"

 

[Oblivian]

The guy I clinched has been into Thai for just under a year, enough to know the basics pretty well.
And as for the part I put in bold, the only reason Pudz xompetes at such a high level is because of the fact that he is easily marketable as "the world's strongest man" and people will pay to watch a guy like that fight to see how he does.
I've been Thai Boxing since I was 7, (took a long time off due to work) I turn 36 next month, do you honestly think that if I was to lift weights I would see some miraculous improvement in my performance? I doubt it.

I will agree with you that technique matters much more than strength in thai boxing. But to simplify this argument, let me give you a hypothetical. Suppose someone has good technique but is fairly weak in terms of strength. If there was another version of him at the same weight, same technique, and all of other factors equal besides an increased strength level, do you think the "strong version" would be a better thai boxer?

 

[XTrainer]

I've been Thai Boxing since I was 7, (took a long time off due to work) I turn 36 next month, do you honestly think that if I was to lift weights I would see some miraculous improvement in my performance? I doubt it.

"Miraculous" by definition implies something beyond reality, so no, not a miraculous improvement. But certainly an improvement. Are you going to tell me that you've never been dominated in the clinch? That you don't want to hit harder? That you don't want to be more explosive?

Moreover, the returns of technique training (like any training) over time get smaller and smaller. There's always something you can tweak, but the benefits of doing so decrease over time, as you take care of big problems and move on to smaller details. This is where you're at. If you really want to see improvement, you need to look outside the technique "box." You need to look at developing attributes whose returns on training time haven't diminished to near nothing.

However, you seem to have conflated "bodybuilding," "lifting weights," and "strength training." This is major mistake. Only one of these approaches will give you the results you desire.

I also have to note that, while Pudz's marketing appeal may be the reason for him getting fights, it cannot account for him actually winning any of those fights.

 

[flak]

There's no such thing as "functional" strength.

I've gotta disagree. My definition of functional strength is, "strength that's well-suited to a particular task."

You've got all sorts of variables that play into it. When my son was younger I sometimes had to carry him for long distances or long periods of time -- leaving Disney World at 10 p.m. when he was asleep on his feet, etc. I needed to be able to support a 30 or 50 lbs. dead weight in my arms for, say, 15 minutes without a break, while standing or walking.

That's the task, and from the task come the specific strength factors needed.

I think the reason "functional" strength gets so much lip service these days is that people are trying to sell "magic bullet" solutions to people who want shortcuts. Barbell strength training is best suited to helping you lift barbells, but it has tons of carryover to other activities, and it's practical, accessible and easily monitored and modified.

 

[XTrainer]

Flak-- I believe in specificity. I understand that practice (technique training, if you will) allows you to use whatever strength you have efficiently and effective. But strength is still just strength. Your capacity to produce force (strength) does not vary based on the challenge you are presented with. How efficiently and effectively you apply that force, yes, specificity and practice/training/experience come into play.

 

[BigSmile]

I am learning a lot from both sides at the moment but to answer some questions and comments:

TS, if you're "not a pro fighter, not even an amateur", then you might want to take into account that (properly planned and executed) strength training has a lot more benefits for your long-term health and every-day life than thai-boxing training.

I disagree. The confidence and the momentum Thaiboxing gives me is enormous, I never had anything like this with lifting weights. I was an angry boy who lifted weights. Now I am beating the anger out of myself. This sport is so mentally challenging for me, and there is no room for ego. + i feel stronger then ever, i never felt strong when I only lifted weights while I was one of the stronger people at our gym

The important thing is moving the threshold of where "100%" is. Do understand what I mean by that?

I do understand this, but

You need to look at everyday training as preparation for the competition

My competition might never come, so how is going behond the treshold at that point something good for me?

First, do you need to cut back on your activities, to have more time for school? Or just to be less busy?
Second, what are the major weaknesses in your MT game?
Third, is your lifting addressing the weaknesses in your MT game?
If the weaknesses in your MT game have little relevance to strength, then maybe you should cut back on the lifting, if only to save time.
Have you talked to MT your coach and asked "what do I need to do to improve?"

For me its about the energy tank. I cant be exhausted because of training all the time when I need to focus on school (i dont feel exhausted all the time, but when I have been training 3 days in a row I need my rest, but then I have to focus @ school). My biggest weakness is my defense, i am pretty agressive and I tend to neglect that the other guy can punch and kick too. I don't think the lifting is adressing the weaknesses in my thaiboxing, i do want to become faster and have more condition and strength training might help me with that

I didn't talk to him about it, he is pretty good in spotting what trainees do good and bad and he tells you right away. I give myself 200%, all the time, but i do need to work on my defense

 

[XTrainer]

I do understand this, but My competition might never come, so how is going behond the treshold at that point something good for me?

Whether or not you actually compete is irrelevant. Do you want to improve? That is the question.

 

[BigSmile]

ofcourse i do. I believe martial arts is all about self improvement.

 

[Steakeater**]

Weightlifting wont really make you HIT harder. But hitting hard is just one aspect of Muay Thai.

My suggestion look into diminishing returns of time required for strength gain and recover and start tapering from there

 

[flak]

For me its about the energy tank. I cant be exhausted because of training all the time when I need to focus on school (i dont feel exhausted all the time, but when I have been training 3 days in a row I need my rest, but then I have to focus @ school). My biggest weakness is my defense, i am pretty agressive and I tend to neglect that the other guy can punch and kick too. I don't think the lifting is adressing the weaknesses in my thaiboxing, i do want to become faster and have more condition and strength training might help me with that

I didn't talk to him about it, he is pretty good in spotting what trainees do good and bad and he tells you right away. I give myself 200%, all the time, but i do need to work on my defense

Okay, it sounds like maybe you need to exercise a bit less so that you have more energy for school. Maybe it'd be good to consider lifting twice a week or once a week.

You say you want to be faster, what exactly do you mean? You want to throw faster punches and kicks, have faster reflexes, have faster footwork, all of the above? What are you doing technique-wise to make that happen? As far as lifting, explosive strength could help, and endurance strength could help. So you may need to adjust your lifting routine to emphasize those two things.

If your big MT weakness is defense, that's something you mostly need to address via training with a partner/coach and sparring. Lifting big won't help you slip a punch or detect an incoming roundhouse kick.

What are you doing to improve your defense? Are you making extra effort beyond the usual class workouts? If you want to be good at MT, put more of your supplemental training time into defensive skills.

Talk to your coach.

 

[PWR1982]

The guy I clinched has been into Thai for just under a year, enough to know the basics pretty well.
And as for the part I put in bold, the only reason Pudz xompetes at such a high level is because of the fact that he is easily marketable as "the world's strongest man" and people will pay to watch a guy like that fight to see how he does.
I've been Thai Boxing since I was 7, (took a long time off due to work) I turn 36 next month, do you honestly think that if I was to lift weights I would see some miraculous improvement in my performance? I doubt it.

Well I'll ask you differently, do you think you'll see some miraculous improvement in your thai boxing skills, when you've been doing it for so long?

To be honest, I think someone like you is quite probably better off doing a lot of other things together with thai boxing. You won't improve much in the next 2 years of thaiboxing. However weight lifting is something you are not that experienced in, and even though it is not nearly as important as technique, if you have to choose between a big improvement in strength, or a very very tiny improvement in technique, strength is a good choice imo. But weight lifting is only an example, you can do anything, crosstrain in normal boxing, read the art of war by Sun Tzu and improve your theoretical approach to fighting...

 

[BigSmile]

i focus alot during technique training, and at the moment during sparring i try to focus more on defense then attack

read the art of war by Sun Tzu and improve your theoretical approach to fighting...

I bought this book the other day, it was one of those books I really wanted to read some day. Didn't even realise it might be good for fighting haha

 

[CoreCanyon]

For me its about the energy tank. I cant be exhausted because of training all the time when I need to focus on school (i dont feel exhausted all the time, but when I have been training 3 days in a row I need my rest, but then I have to focus @ school). My biggest weakness is my defense, i am pretty agressive and I tend to neglect that the other guy can punch and kick too. I don't think the lifting is adressing the weaknesses in my thaiboxing, i do want to become faster and have more condition and strength training might help me with that.

Maybe you should check what you are eating, too. Anytime I start thinking about physical exhaustion, I look into my fuel source.

at the same time, I see how you are working a lot, so I get the point of the thread.

It was said earlier, that if it is not about competing/competition for you, then why not add something else (weights) that would be beneficial to your health in the long run.

Again, weight training, however specific, is never EVER bad for any sport. The hypothetical was used earlier...if there are two equal skill sets in the ring, football field, basketball court, or whatever, the one who is stronger will win much more often than not.

In some aspects yes, the stronger fighter would have an advantage but training for strength requires you to lift heavy, when doing so you naturally put on extra weight so the lighter version would enjoy a cardio advantage, possibly wearing the stronger fighter down and as the 4th and 5th rounds are the money rounds that may cost the stronger fighter the fight if he can't keep up.

You are dodging what he is asking. The two fighters have equal skill sets. Also, being stronger =/= bad cardio. There was an article posted on this forum a few days ago about a S&C coach who trains Jim Miller (and several other fighters) and the way his game has improved/evolved since he's added strength training to the mix. He pointed out his deadlift is at like 450 or something. Not bad for a guy who is living at 170ish pounds, AND cardio isn't a factor for him.

 

[Bedlam]

I'd go with flak on this. You said your main concerns are skill and conditioning, with strength and speed as something you'd want to work on.

Have you considered some light periodization? You could base the grueling weeks around school as well so you're not wrecked for an exam. Sorry if I read that wrong and you're not a student.

Do a few months focusing on skill and conditioning, with one maybe two days a week lifting. Then take a one to two month break from the conditioning and focus on strength and a little skill.

After you've improved your conditioning to the level you want switch it up again; focus more on strength, skill, power, power-endurance, whatever you need.

 

[flak]

Flak-- I believe in specificity. I understand that practice (technique training, if you will) allows you to use whatever strength you have efficiently and effective. But strength is still just strength. Your capacity to produce force (strength) does not vary based on the challenge you are presented with. How efficiently and effectively you apply that force, yes, specificity and practice/training/experience come into play.

Yeah, but there's endurance strength, maximal strength, explosive strength, etc.

In my example, carrying a kid around for long periods of time, endurance strength is a bigger factor than it would be if I was doing deadlifts. Plus, if I carry the kid again and again my muscles (not to mention my ability to balance, walk, etc.) will eventually adapt to the specific demands of carrying a 30 lbs. kid in my arms in front of my chest -- the posture involved, keeping the kid upright, etc. So the activity becomes easier.

So all I'm saying is, barbell training has given me a good starting point to carry the kid, but it's not perfectly matched to the demands of the activity.

Edited to add:

Let's say you could magically take two identical dads and have them train on an identical barbell routine with identical poundages on a routine that emphasizes maximal strength -- a 5x5 or SS, let's say.

And, we'll have them each do one supplemental exercise. One will do car pushes, the other will walk a half-mile carrying a 30 lbs. sandbag in his arms.

After six months of this regimen, each dad is put at the front gate of Disney World's magic freakin' kingdom and handed a sleeping 30 lbs. child. Each dad must carry the child to the busport, hold the child until the bus comes, hold the child on the bus, and then carry the child back to the Disney resort cheap-o hotel where you're staying. All of this must be done without dropping the child, and while minimizing the number of times the father has to set down the child to rest, or stop walking to rest.

Which dad do you think will perform better at this task? My money's on the dad who trained with the sandbag, because his muscles, nervous system, etc. are better adapted to that exact task.

So, in this context, the dad who trained with the sandbag has strength that's a bit more functional than that of the other dad.

But what's "functional" is totally dependent on the demands of the task.

 

[DrBdan]

flak, you make a good point. I think the issue is really just that what you are referring to as "functional" strength would be called "specificity" by others. The term "functional" has been co-opted by so-called Fitness gurus and crappy programs like p90x and tends to invoke thoughts of "one leg squats on a gym ball while avoiding a stick swung by an old man with a Fu Manchu moustache". But your explanation makes sense, at least to me it does.

 

[flak]

flak, you make a good point. I think the issue is really just that what you are referring to as "functional" strength would be called "specificity" by others. The term "functional" has been co-opted by so-called Fitness gurus and crappy programs like p90x and tends to invoke thoughts of "one leg squats on a gym ball while avoiding a stick swung by an old man with a Fu Manchu moustache". But your explanation makes sense, at least to me it does.

If I'm being a total dumbass by using the term "functional strength" here, I apologize. I'm not trying to stir up trouble. I've heard and seen the term over and over, as all of you have. I had the impression it meant "strength that's well suited to the task at hand."

Anyway, I've said what I have to say.

 

[miaou]

If I had to offer a definition for functional strength, I would say it's a combination of strength, absence of muscle imbalances, and proper muscle coordination and firing sequence (second and third are strongly related to the accustomization to non-isolated move patterns). Depending on the context, I would also include RFD (it's important in joint stabilization and explosive movements like jumps, landings, changes of direction, etc.).

I can understand the argument for the "demands of the specific task", but that is really about specificity rather than functionality. At least that is my best understanding of the term.