This is a follow up to The Truth About Resistance Training for Longevity in Jiu-Jitsu.
A couple weeks ago I wrote a piece on the first principles of exercise (specifically resistance training) for longevity and injury prevention in grappling.
The TLDR version:
- There are a variety of methods that can all produce desired results, but this fact in no way means that all methods are ideal, especially if one is optimizing for long-term success. (This is true of both Jiu-Jitsu and strength training.)
- When it comes to resistance training, the vast majority of people are doing far too much volume, performing movements inefficiently, and have been led to believe certain “facts” about exercise that are simply untrue.
- You would be better served by much less training volume and frequency, but with much greater intensity and focus on proper technique.
The Goal:
To train all major muscle groups as effectively, efficiently, and safely as possible.
And I’ll also add that the goal of bigger / stronger muscles isn’t to use more strength in regular Jiu-Jitsu training, as discussed at length in my video on “The Strength Debate Revisited.”
There is an inverse relationship between use of strength and technical efficiency, so outside of competition or an actual fight, you should always be seeking to rely on less use of strength in your training, not more.
Part 2: Peeling Back the Layers on “Volume”:
Since I began talking about this subject, the most common questions or objections I’ve received have pertained to exercise volume. These often reference what appears to be competing research that demonstrates higher volume/frequency is desirable.
But once you really start to dig into the research design of these studies, you begin to see where the apparent conflicts aren’t nearly as substantive than they might seem…
Here are just a couple of many examples:
1. Sets and reps – what are we even talking about here? In pretty much every case, this is not apples to apples.
Let’s say Subject Group A performs 3 sets of 8-12 repetitions of a leg press and Subject Group B performs only 1 set of 8-12 repetitions, and consistently the subjects in Group A see better results in strength and hypertrophy.
Now let’s zoom in a bit more.
Upon further inspection, it turns out that the subjects’ sets in both groups average 20-30 seconds in duration and they are pausing at full knee extension on some repetitions, meaning that their target muscle groups are effectively deloaded for 1-2 seconds.
Now let’s consider a hypothetical Subject Group C, which isn’t actually part of that study. Just as with Subject Group B, Group C subjects also perform only one set, but with these important differences:
They are carefully monitored to ensure that their knees never exceed 10 degrees of extension on any repetition, meaning that the target muscle groups are under constant load during the entire set, and their sets last 60-90 seconds.
As you can see, the sets and rep scheme is somewhat arbitrary in this example. Because Subject Group C is actually achieving more volume in one set than Subject A, which was performing 3 sets once we factor in TUL, or time under load. Subject C’s one set was just a long as Subject A’s 3 sets, but also more effectively loaded because there were no “dead spots” in the reps at lockout (full knee extension).
2. Intensity – hand in hand with #1 is intensity. The standard here is around the principle of momentary muscle failure.
Here’s what that doesn’t mean: the subject “feels” that he or she can’t do another rep.
Here’s what it does mean: the subject literally, objectively cannot move the weight another millimeter without sacrificing proper form.
The gap between subjective and objective here is significant.
Interestingly, one of the often-cited researchers on exercise volume/intensity in recent years actually videoed himself achieving “momentary muscle failure,” and guess what…?
It was nowhere remotely close to true failure. He actually remarked, “that’s failure for me,” but was clearly still moving the weight in a manner that indicated he was well short of his limit.
Could it be any more evident that even this single semantic misfire –– defining the term incorrectly –– compromises the entire research design and subsequent conclusions around volume and intensity?
So here’s the TLDR for Part 2:
Just as there is an inverse relationship between strength and technical efficiency in Jiu-Jitsu, there is an inverse relationship between intensity and volume/frequency in exercise. Yes, you can get equal or better results with less as long as you’re doing less better.
