|
Definitions vs. Work
Today we are going to dive head-first into the rocky waters of trying to define something that just, maybe, does not need to be defined--The Elements of Fitness. It seems that anyone who pontificates on the subject of conditioning for a number of years (myself included) is legally obligated to take a stab at defining just what it is we strive for when devising "optimum" conditioning plans.
First, a caveat. Please take my definition of the elements of fitness with a grain of salt (several grains are probably in order). Might I also suggest that any absolute definition of any complex system be, likewise, taken as salty as you can stand. Any system as subject to variables and physiological vagaries as the human body is constitutionally resistant to easy categorical labeling.
Shoe-horning complex systems into nice, tidy individual boxes is a mine-field of excuse-making and biases. We can see the start of this problem simply by taking a look at trying to define something as "agreed upon" as the word "fitness" itself. Is fitness maximum strength? Sure, it can be. Phenomenal endurance? Yeah, sounds good to me. Awesome agility? Oh, that's a good one, too. But, let's say we all agree that these are fine elements to factor into our definition of fitness, is our job done? Nope, not by a longshot.
Fitness and its component elements (whatever we choose to include) are always applied along a relative scale. Maximum strength for one sport, say the core strength for an elite PGA competitor's swing is but a drop in the bucket for the power lifter. Ultimate endurance for the grueling sport of boxing is simply not the same endurance required for the Ultra-Marathon competitor and so on, and so forth. With the relative scale in mind, we've always got to hear any potentially vague word such as "fitness, or "strength" or, "stamina" and ask just what yardstick we are measuring by. All sports and athletic endeavors possess their own yardsticks and trying to measure one disparate sport against another may not necessarily be helpful. For the most part, we should only be concerned with the yardstick of your own sport (I'm assuming if you're reading this, we're all thinking combat sports).
Caveat #2. I've already tipped my hand that abstract definitions of complex systems may be a little suspect but, let's go even further. You don't even need solid definitions of fitness or, even more useless is defining the elements of fitness. I'll go even further, you don't need to understand the concrete physiological specifics of how or why the human body responds the way it does to intense physical exercise. You simply need to get all Nike and just do it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for self-education (auto-didacticism--nice word, huh?) and understanding but, understanding "how" the body works is not the same thing as actually "doing" the work. In essence, we don't necessarily need to pin down all the internal physiological processes that occur during a series of sprints so much as simply run the sprints and let the processes take care of themselves. The body will respond with little need of our cognitive understanding. That is the body's job.
OK, now that I've explained at length why such abstract definitions are close to valueless allow me to put on my hypocrite's cap and offer my definition of fitness and the corresponding elements that comprise fitness. (Seriously, you can stop reading right here if you want to).
Fitness for the combat athlete, in my hypocrites' book, is a combination of the three twin elements outlined below, intertwined and balanced in such a manner that no single element necessarily outshines the other and contributes to an overall ability to perform/execute/pursue combat sport/CQB endeavors. (How's that for gobbledegook?)
I offer my elements of fitness (six total) as complementary twins. By my estimation each individual element in a pair is made stronger by its paired correlate. I think the reasoning (or lack of ) will reveal itself as you read on.
Strength & Stamina--The first twin elements, as they apply to combat sports, should come as no surprise. Despite some fringe claims that size and strength don't matter in combat I think most of us are aboard the reality train of oh, yes, indeed they do matter. If they didn't matter, why do we have weight classes?
Seeing as how strength does matter, we need to ask just how much strength? And what kind of strength? Let's use as a strength base-line, at minimum, the ability to control poundage that matches your bodyweight in all of the major lifts (Olympic & Power Lifts). At this point we're not talking about bodyweight exercises in the calisthenics sense but, actually hefting your weight in iron which is a reasonable correlate of fighting against your own weight class. Of course, more strength is always better but, this is our minimum baseline we're discussing here.
Strength's twin element is stamina. Strength is a mighty fine attribute to possess but, we must stress that the ability to heft, say, twice or thrice your bodyweight in single repetitions, while admirably strong may not be exactly the level of strength we need for our sports of focus. We need strength that goes and goes and goes. In other words, we need stamina. A good level of our baseline strength (at a minimum) that you are able to move again and again just as you would in a full-distance match.
Agility & Body Control--For combat sports we'll define agility as the ability to maneuver and/or regain control in unusual balance deficits (i.e., surviving a scramble and coming out on top). We need not possess the elite levels of agility that even an intermediate gymnast possesses but, some ability and skill work in all ranges of motion does indeed seem to be in order.
Since agility calls for the ability to maneuver the body in all ranges of motion this is where body control comes into play (calisthenics/somatotrophics). We need the ability to get ourselves up off the mat in a variety of manners, we need to push, pull, twist, roll, find our feet in less than predictable circumstances. For this we rely on conditioning our body to be able to respond to repeated efforts at pushing, pulling, standing, bending, torqueing et cetera. We do this by adopting calisthenics/somatotrophics that mimic conditions we are likely to face.
Speed & Mobility--Our final pair rounds out the fitness definition. Speed work, whether that be sprintwork to build explosiveness and the ability to recover after maximal efforts or, speed in technical skill work to overwhelm an opponent are probably self-explanatory. Whereas mobility might be less so.
Our working definition of mobility is the ability to move over, under, around, up or through an obstacle while still observing the paired correlate of speed. Some might see this as a mirror of agility but I want to distinguish the two. Agility is the ability to control the body in relatively static work whereas mobility is the ability to control the body while on the move. Think of the difference between rolling out of a backcast takedown with ease (agility) and repeatedly high-stepping out of an opponents' low shots (mobility). Note: Mobility takes on more significance for CQB/Street Work where flight over fight should be the maxim.
So, there we have it, my subjective definition of fitness and the elements that comprise it. If you find some merit in this approach, I'm gratified and hope you find it of value in how you approach your own training. If not, no harm, no foul, you're probably wiser for rejecting my hypothesis. What I can say for certain, though, is that whoever is training right now, right this minute, is doing something far more significant, more useful than writing or, or reading about training. 'Nuff said. Let's go to work!
| 
