Ancient Physical Culture Through Wrestling/Grappling

Here is an article I wrote not-so-recently for the Bodyweightculture site (www.bodyweightculture.com):

The recent resurrection of interest for all things “old-time” when it comes to the development of physical strength, endurance and health, has led to a veritable avalanche of articles, books and courses that cover old-time greats and their training methods. Some of these works are genuinely useful; others seem to be riding the wave of popularity, endeavouring to squeeze out the last dime out of the pockets of strength enthusiasts worldwide. This, however, is not an article about the inherent inhumanity of contemporary capitalism, or an attempt to expose modern marketing frauds. The purpose of the article is to provide a comprehensive overview of exercise protocols followed by wrestlers of the Far and Near East since ancient times. It is not the product of unbiased, direct and detailed research, rather a compilation of works already available through the Internet, and should be taken as such. Nothing more, nothing less.

Since the dawn of time, various forms of grappling have been employed by men in all parts of the world as a method of strengthening the body and mind and preparing for the one and only true pastime of humanity: war. Just as baseball is called The Great American Pastime, murder and war deserve the title of The Great Human Pastime. Slaughtering each other by the dozens over issues real and imagined is what has defined us as a species over the centuries. The history of humanity also notes brief interruptions in the wonderful game of slaughter; these annoying breaks, distastefully termed peace, were necessary so that the armies could re-stock on fresh “cannon fodder” (if such a term can be used in the era pre-dating the invention of the cannon), sow and reap the fields to provide rations for the armies, and investigate new murdering and marauding possibilities for the next round of happy hostilities. However, it soon became obvious that the ancient warrior was kind of out of his depth in times of peace – once the field work was done, there wasn’t a whole lot for him to entertain himself with. Boredom ruled and tempers flared easily, and more often than not comrades-in-arms turned onto each other over petty insults. The “corporations” in whose interest the wars were waged in the first place (in this instance – the ruler, major nobles or a religious organization) found that the worthy practice of hewing off one’s neighbour’s head was damaging quarterly profit reports (these go back further than one would think), so they hastily developed sets of activities that would replace pillaging and rape in times of peace, assuaging the tempers of the testosterone-driven sword and axe-wielders until their aggression could be used in a more productive manner.

Such was the origin of martial arts, and exercise in general. Under these new rules, man could maul and beat up his fellow man without running the risk of (serious and mortal) injury that would render one or both participants incapable of killing other people in times of war. This manner of physical exertion took on many forms in various parts of the globe, but the main idea remained the same: grappling, striking, running and marching with and without weapons, and various tests of martial skill including dueling with weapons. Different national and ethnic traditions determined countless “flavor” differences, so the Japanese developed jiu-jitsu, Indians developed Kushti, Europeans had pankration (much like UFC today) and the Medieval wrestling styles, and the Anglo-Saxon world spawned the honored art of catch wrestling. This article aims to take a closer look at the wrestling traditions of India and Central Asia, which seem to be closely related, not so much in terms of techniques and holds used as in terms of training methods. Emphasis will be placed on these shared strength and conditioning methods, while the actual techniques, holds, chokes, etc. are best studied under qualified supervision.

The training of Indian wrestlers has received a lot of media attention since the birth of the concept of “functional training”. Firstly, we shall disambiguate between the terms Indian wrestling (correct use) and Hindu wrestling (incorrect, yet more prevalent use, of which I have been guilty myself in the past). The reason for the use of Hindu in conjunction with this term has to do with general ignorance and the fact that the programs that sparked interest for these ancient training methods used this term. Many of the famed “Hindu” wrestlers in fact came from Kashmir and other parts of pre-Partition India dominated by proponents of the Islamic faith, and the most famous “Hindu” wrestler of all time, The Great Gama Baksh, was a devout Muslim who must be turning in his grave every time someone refers to him as the “famous Hindu wrestler”. It would be like calling the Japanese fighting arts Buddhist wrestling, or dubbing catch wrestling Christian wrestling. For this purpose, the native word Kushti will be used in the place of Indian wrestling.

However, the strength and conditioning traditions commonly related to Kushti have never been limited to the great expanses of the Indian sub-continent. The mountain ranges of Kashmir and today’s Pakistan flow into the highlands of Afghanistan, then northward and westward into the turbulent Middle East and the mythical countries of Central Asia. Commerce and conquest have forged close links between the rival nations since ancient times, and a lot of them share a common ethnic background, despite speaking different languages or praying in different temples. The interweaving of diverse cultures has lead to the spread of traditional wrestling practices among the nations of this part of the world, and behind this wave followed traditional strength and conditioning practices. Through Ottoman and Mongol conquest and settlement, these ancient traditions have made their way into Europe.

So where did this type of wrestling originate? Is it Indian, Kazakh, Uzbek or Turkish? Was wrestling brought on horseback, from the frozen steppes of Mongolia, where similar wrestling styles exist and competitions are held to this day? Or did Persia, that beacon of science and progress in ancient and medieval times, give birth to club swinging and wrestling-specific bodyweight exercise regimens? We will never know. A much more likely answer is that all of these cultures participated in the development of these exercises. Even today, the wrestling traditions of these countries retain many elements that make each national wrestling tradition unique and different from the others.

After this long-winded introduction, let us turn to the main part of the article – conditioning exercises:

Dands, Baithaks and Bodyweight Exercises

The staple conditioning exercises of the fabled Kushti practitioners, these two exercises have become know as the “Hindu Pushup” (dand) and the “Hindu Squat” (baithak or bethak). Descriptions of these two exercises abound on the internet; therefore I will omit them from this article. Both of these are performed for very high reps – Indian wrestlers regularly perform thousands of these every day in addition to their other training. Great Gama Baksh reputedly worked up to five thousand baithaks and three thousand dands per day at the peak of his career. He would enter a trance-like state and intone the name of God with every repetition; for this deeply religious man faith was the chief source of strength during these extreme tests of physical prowess. It was not uncommon for the dirt and mud floor of the akhara (wrestling pit) to bear a perfect outline of a wrestler’s body due to the effusion of sweat during these intense workouts. Hindu squat thrusts were also employed as a conditioning exercise.

Squats and pushups, albeit not always of the “Hindu” variety, are staple conditioners throughout the Central Asian wrestling world. The reason? These exercises are simple to master and require no equipment, yet they work. Done in hundreds of repetitions, they will increase your muscular endurance and give the heart and lungs a great workout – precisely what one needs for a wrestling match. Even performing them for 20-30 reps sporadically throughout the day will produce an invigorating effect.

An interesting addition to any pushup routine is the use of a pushup board. Originally used by Persian pahlavani (“heroes”, a term used to denote wrestlers and strongmen; evolved into pahlwani in India and pehlivan and its derivatives in the Turkish-speaking nations of Central Asia), this device is essentially a small wooden plank elevated on two blocks, or “legs”. The athlete holds the ends and performs dands, possibly some other joint mobility exercises as well. The Persian name for this device is Takhteh Shena, and it is thought that this type of exercise was introduced to India by Persian wrestlers fleeing Mongol invaders in the thirteenth century. Upon arrival, it was combined with yoga practices that already existed in the area, and thus evolved the staple bodyweight exercises of Kushti practitioners. If one breaks down the movement pattern, the dand is a combination of three yoga poses performed dynamically (“downward dog” to “plank/crocodile” to “upward dog” or “cobra”). Be as it may, Steve Maxwell, a well-known physical trainer, has resurrected this simple, yet effective training tool; he offers them through his site, pushupboard.com, along with a DVD with exercise instructions. of course, if you don’t have ten thumbs when it comes to making things like I do, you could probably knock one together yourself.

Other bodyweight exercises used by grapplers from Indian akharas to Iranian zoorkhanes included:

Spinning, a practice which develops balance and spatial awareness and which is related to the religious practice of Sufi whirling among members of the ascetic Sufi Tariqah of Islam, more commonly known as dervishes or darvishes. This whirling dance, one of the most physically demanding forms of worship around, originated in Iran (Persia), but its most prominent practitioners are the Turkish Mevlevi Order in and around the Konya region. Did the physical aspect of this exercise predate the spiritual or vice versa? This is a tough one to answer, so I will leave that to someone else.

Stomping, which was a dance performed as kicking practice. Here it is interesting to note that the Sumo wrestlers of Japan employ the same training method, that of stomping on the ground for high repetitions to develop strength. They also use the teppo, which is a wooden log on which palm strikes are performed with the heel of the hand in the same pattern.

Squatting, which was not done for high reps as in the case of Kushti practitioners, but more as a dance for the general strengthening of the legs for kicking. It should be noted here that almost all mentioned traditions – Iranian/Persian, Turkish, Mongolian, Indian – use some form of dancing as preparation for the wrestling bouts, usually to the beating of drums and other ethnic instruments. It can be concluded that dancing is viewed as important for developing body control, balance and poise. Traditional dances are also one hell of a workout!

Bodyweight exercises have been around since the dawn of man, and their effectiveness and simplicity of use have earned them a permanent spot in the training regimens of wrestlers and other athletes, ancient and modern alike. I have separated pole and rope climbing in a separate section, as I feel that they require more detailed attention.

Yoga

The relationship between Yoga and the dand and baithak has already been touched upon above. I must say that I am largely unfamiliar with Yoga and dislike rambling on about stuff I’m not familiar with, therefore this type of training should be covered in detail by someone else. It should suffice to say that wrestling exercises are most closely related to the “sun salutation” Yoga sequence, surya namaskar; some bridging and calisthenic-type elements from yoga asana are also utilized. Breathing control is also extremely important in all wrestling scenarios. Steve Maxwell writes that it is in fact assumed that asana originated from wrestling practices, as the original yoga texts only describe a couple of yogic exercises, most of which were seated positions).

I am uncertain about the extent of yogic exercises used in non-Indian training systems, but joint mobility work would be very similar, even if the Turks and Iranians don’t call their mobility work “yoga”. Some of the Iranian (Persian) training methods include exercises similar to the dand, done on the pushup board, so it is relatively easy to establish a connection here.

Perhaps the best illustration of yoga-type exercises for wrestlers comes not from India and Iran, but from the opposite side of the world. Brazilian jiu-jitsu expert Rickson Gracie demonstrates some of these exercises in his documentary Choke. Clips are available for free viewing on YouTube.

Gada/Meel/Jori

This type of training refers to apparatus exercises performed with leverage implements – clubs, maces, but also sledgehammer-like devices. Club swinging was introduced into Western physical culture through the British conquests of India, and primarily included light club swinging.

What follows is a disambiguation between the three terms in the sub-title, and some very brief notes on their use:

Gada: this is the Hindu term used for the mace or “mace-bell”. This exercising implement was developed from the weapon of the same name and shape, and carries a connotation of aggression and strength in many ancient cultures. In fact, the mace is the first implement developed specifically for the purpose of killing other human beings. Prior to the invention of the mace, weapons of war were hunting implements, like the knife, spear and bow. In India, maces are a symbol of strength and the favoured weapon of the monkey-god Hanuman in Hindu religion (the patron of warriors, warfare and strength). Often confused with the club, the gada is generally longer (it has a longer handle) and almost all of the weight is centered on the top (the “head”), which produces a superb torque effect as the implement is swung around. The gada is principally used for swinging motions in which both arms are employed; the principal muscles worked are the shoulders, arms, hands, fingers and core. They would range from 20 to 60 lbs. in weight, but special heavy gadas were made in excess of 100 lbs. Now, lifting a nicely balanced barbell with two arms is not much of a strength feat, but swinging a 60-lb. gada around the head will provide more than a decent workout. This, in fact, was the most popular move – simply swinging the mace around one’s head in one direction, then reversing the circular motion. Simple, but by no means easy.

Older texts mention the use of two smaller gadas, which would be similar to using a pair of meels, which are described below.

Meel: this is the Persian version of the club; the most precise description I’ve been able to find is that it seems like a cross between the mace and the swinging club (jori). Unlike the mace, meels are used in pairs and utilized in a number of ways, from circular swinging, straight-arm swinging, levering exercises, etc. They would weigh anywhere between 5 and 40 kgs. (11 to 88 lbs.). The lighter ones are designed to improve the wrestler’s stamina, and used in sets of 100 reps or more. Heavier ones are used to develop strength. The heaviest pair weighed cca. 140 lbs. (per meel), so one can easily get the picture of the insane amount of strength required to control a pair of these implements.

Exercising with meels is a national sport in parts of Iran, and they even hold official competitions as part of the traditional wrestling tournaments. The official move with meels constitutes holding them by the handles with arms at 90 degrees (halfway position of a hammer curl), then lifting them over and behind the head, reversing the motion and repeating this one meel at a time. This is done to the beating of a drum – the faster the rhythm, the faster the swings.

Jori: this is the term generally used to describe light swinging clubs of the bowling-pin-shaped variety used in turn-of-the-century physical culture. The size and shape of these implements varies, much like the meel. They are also used in pairs. Club swinging was featured as an Olympic sport in 1948 under the term Rhythmic Gymnastics, but discontinued shortly after.

Heavy pillar-like joris were termed ekka, and had the appearance of a cylinder tapering toward the handle. Really extreme jori and ekka practitioners used implements studded with nails and blades – an added incentive not to touch them to any part of the body during performance. Again, the idea was to swing and lever the club all over the place.

Another type of heavy club is the karela, which looks like the archetypal wooden club (think of what cavemen use in cartoons and you’re pretty much on the money). This device was used two-handed like the gada, and the exercises were much more limited in comparison to the joris, meels and ekka, which were used in pairs.

Mallakhamb and Rope Climbing

The art of mallakhamb, or pole climbing, has already been described in an excellent article here on www.bodyweightculture.com, and I really have nothing to add there. Rope climbing is probably the best upper-body exercise of all time, and it is brutally simple. A rope is climbed either by using the hands and feet, or the hands only. Extremely strong folk will benefit from climbing the rope one-handed, in leaps. Rope climbing will develop the arms, specially the biceps, far better than any pullup, chinup or bicep curl variation. For those who lack the strength for rope climbing, grabbing a rope like you’re going to climb it and performing pullups is an excellent exercise. Strength will come quickly, as there is very little technique to be mastered. The rope is merciless – you’re either strong enough to climb it or not.

Every grappler, fighter or tactical professional (fireman, policeman, soldier, etc.) should start climbing ropes immediately if he/she is not already doing it. Indian wrestlers would also perform “rope mallakhamb” routines, which are incredibly difficult, even more so than mallakhamb itself.

Nal/Gar Nal and Other Weighted Implements

The nal is a round stone weight with a carved-out centre into which a handle (usually wooden) is inserted. They are of progressive weight to suit the developing strength of the user, which shows that even the ancients fully understood that you need to lift heavier weights to get stronger, a concept that completely eludes 95% of the gym-going population of today. Their compact size makes them adaptable for dumb-bell type exercises, but heavy nals exist which require two hands to use and go up to 400 lbs. in weight. It is part of the Indian strength training tradition. The most common exercise with the smaller nals was the two-dumbbell clean and press.

The gar nal is also an Indian concept. It is a nal without the handle in the centre (in essence, a stone circle) and was commonly used to add weight to bodyweight movements like the dand and baithak by placing it around the athlete’s neck. Running with a gar nal was a popular exercise; the Great Gama was reputed to use a 100-lb. gar nal and run for about a mile. Doesn’t sound like very far, but one needs to try it to appreciate how difficult this really is.

Another popular exercise with the gar nal was a get-up type of exercise. The wrestler would kneel in front of a gar nal, lift it up on its side and place his head through the hole in the weight. Placing it around his neck, he would then proceed to stand upright from the kneeling position. After assuming an upright stance, he would press the gar nal from his shoulders to overhead.

Stone balls, much like ones used in today’s Strongman contests, were probably the most popular weighted exercise in India, but also other parts of the world. Villages would hold contests in stone ball lifting, and in some areas lifting a stone ball of at least 200 lbs. in weight was considered a rite of passage into manhood. The most popular exercise was lifting it off the ground and throwing it behind one’s back with a jerk. They were also used to add weight to the baithak, or just to pick up and run/walk with. All these exercises developed tremendous strength and power in the practitioners.

The “Indian barbell” or sumtola resembled a “log” device used in contemporary Strongman competition. It was essentially a log made out of a special type of wood, and weighed the same on both ends (hence the name in Hindu). It was used for clean-and-jerk, swing and tricep extension-type exercises, but also in various presses in front of the body, like the Neider press in body-building (only done at various angles). They also varied in weight to match the strength of the user. Extremely heavy sumtolas were attached to ropes and dragged across the dirt and mud floor of the akhara to level it out. A couple thousand years later, the West “discovered” sled dragging as a strength and conditioning method.

Moving on to the Persian wrestling tradition, we find the kabadeh, a bow-shaped iron rod with heavy chains attached on either side. They weighed between 10 and 50 kgs (22 to 110 lbs.) and were swung around the body of the user, much like a heavy double flail, a weapon used by medieval horsemen in Europe. This gave excellent workout to the core, grip and shoulders, but non-proficient users ran a high risk of nasty injury. I guess it wasn’t for beginners to physical culture.

Opponents of the bench press will be surprised by the practice of sang (“shield”). These shield-shaped implements were made of solid wood and weighed between 60 and 120 kgs. (132 to 264 lbs.). They were used in a rolling floor exercise where they were pressed alternatively (like a dumbbell floor press), but with a twist of the entire body toward the opposite side of the pressing arm, much like an arm-bar exercise with kettlebells described by Pavel Tsatsouline. So press with the left – twist to the right until you’re on one side, then alternate.

Sandbags also featured heavily in the training of wrestlers in India and elsewhere. Filled with grain as often as sand, sandbags were used in a plethora of exercises, many of them involving bearhug-and-carries, throws for distance, etc. Every muscle of the body can be trained with the use of a sandbag, either by using sandbag-specific exercises or by replicating barbell movements.

Grainy black-and-white images from turn-of-the-century India reveal that the Indians also used “regular” barbells, i.e. two stone weights connected by a wooden rod. It is conceivable that the exercises performed with those implements were pretty similar to modern-day lifting exercises. It is pretty obvious that Indian, Persian and other wrestling nations did not slack off on work with weighted implements, unlike what many would want the public to believe.

Wrestling and partner exercises

Wrestling an opponent is a strength and conditioning workout in itself, as anyone with a shred of grappling experience will attest. Great Gama would wrestle around 40 opponents per day in addition to regular training, and eventually worked up to 80 per day in his prime. Back then a bout lasted until one of the opponents was defeated, and matches could go on for hours. What is also interesting is that the wrestling practice was arranged in a “progressive resistance” manner: an experienced wrestler would first wrestle boys as a warm-up, then newbies, then work his way up the ranks of the wrestlers until finally going against his peers.

Partner exercises varied. Some of them simply involved partner lifting and carrying, like squats with a partner on the back, partner carries, or wheelbarrow walks. Wrestlers would also do dands with a training partner sitting on their back.

Another popular training method was for the partner to provide manual resistance to the athlete performing a particular exercise, a method that is still commonly used in military training today. For example, two wrestlers would face off and lock hands, alternatively pushing and pulling against the resistance provided by the other. With this type of training, your imagination is the limit.

As can be seen from the information presented above, wrestling-specific strength and conditioning training is a tradition going back hundreds, perhaps even thousands of years. Two intense training sessions a day, coupled with immense caloric intake, created the wrestling legends that took the world by storm as soon as progress made international wrestling matches possible. The Great Gama Baksh was undefeated throughout his wrestling career; he easily overpowered the behemoth Stanislaus Zbysko of Poland, the most feared wrestler of the Old Continent. Georg Hackenschmidt and Karl Gotch, considered the two greatest wrestlers of all time, feared this man so much that they never accepted to fight him. Other legends, like the terrible Turks Ahmed Madrali and “Kara Mustafa” (“Black Mustafa”) dominated European wrestling for years. They trained with total devotion, living a sound lifestyle of exercise, self-control, diet and celibacy. As Vincent Giordano, the author of the wonderful collection of Kushti information, The Physical Body, stated, their strength eventually transcended its mere physical aspects and became an expression of their spiritual strength as well.

Anyone interested in the training of ancient wrestlers should consider purchasing this DVD collection. Also make sure you check out Steve Maxwell’s site, if not for the information on ancient training methods, then for the excellent general training ideas.

A New Take On Bodybuilding

I might have stumbled on the perfect training program for my present condition, and it's... BODYBUILDING TRAINING. I did a brief high-rep, light weight, full-body workout yesterday, and I'm feeling it today. I might stick with it until fully healed.

Bench press: 100 kgs x 30 reps (broken down into several sets with a brief rest in between)

Bent-over row: 70 kgs x 40 reps (very light on these because anything even moderately heavy sets off tendinitis like a flare, varied grips to hit different muscles)

Squat: 110 kgs x 20 reps total (barely managed this - have been hitting the lower body with partials and isometrics three days in a row prior to this)

Overhead press: 60 kgs x 28 reps (miscounted actually, was going for 30, alternated between front and behind-the-neck press)

Bicep curls: 27.5 kgs x 30 reps (EZ bar, again very light to keep the elbow pain-free)

So not a whole lot of joint stress, but got a decent workout. Will try to do this 3 x per week, increasing reps rather than weight. After all the time I've spent bashing bodybuilding-type routines, they may prove to be the answer in these trying times

Test Day At The Gym

Went to the gym to see if there are any exercises that I can do without aggravating my elbow:

Bench presses - I set out pretty gingerly on these, mostly singles and doubles. Worked up to 275 lbs. Wohooo. A SLIGHT bit of pain in the right elbow, so I stopped there.

Clean&press - 135 lbs., needless to say this was a bad idea. Funny thing is, the elbow hurt on the presses, not the clean.

Bent-over row - 135 lbs x several sets x high reps. Not a lot of discomfort here either. But the weight was very light.

Deadlift - a few full-ROM reps, some partial pulls, up to 430 lbs on the partials. Elbow is fine as long as I don't try to bend it while pulling.

High pulls above waist - yeah, bad idea.

Shrugs - okay, cca. 320 lbs. max single.

Dips - these are 100% fine! That's good news.

Also looks like left elbow is healed, no more pain there.

I don't think I'll be going back to regular workouts for a while, though.

Why Train With Cables / Chest Expanders

The recent (commercial) revival of interest in the training techniques of old-time strongmen has brought some unjustly neglected training methods to the surface. Of course, these techniques have been used throughout the decades by strength athletes like powerlifters, weightlifters and Strongman competitors, but had fallen out of favor with elite athletes, physique competitors (principally bodybuilders) and the average Joe/Jane trying to get stronger and look better.

The resurrection of these methods in the strength and conditioning community was started some years ago by the esteemed Brooks D. Kubik, author of Dinosaur Training, probably the best strength book ever written (my humble opinion). Several other experts rode the "functional training" wave to success: the Evil Russian, Pavel Tsatsouline; the snake oil salesman, Matt Furey; Bud Jeffries, probably the most underrated strongman in the history of the game. Fringe authors like John Brookfield, Dennis Rogers and John Wood, came out of relative obscurity and shared their immense knowlede and expertise on being strong as hell. These success stories inspired hundreds of other fitness "experts" to follow suit, which they did more or less successfully. Either way, old-time training seems to be back to stay. It seems as if the strength training world is forced to revert to training philosophies from almost one hundredyears ago, which gives one a good notion of the actual progress (or rather lackthereof) made in this field.

One of the tools of the trade extensively used by old-time strongmen were/are cable sets, or chest expanders. Cable training/strandpulling can be defined as the activity of stretching out elastic strands/bands, usually rubber tubing or steel springs, to a certain length in certain positions. Now, for most of you the mention of a "chest expander" device will a) register no "hits", b) bring back a foggy memory of two handles connected with steel springs that your Dad/Grandpa used to have around the house and didn't necessarily use, or c) bring back painful memories of said springs pinching chest hair and skin, if you belong to the "Baby Boomer" generation and actually used to use one. Indeed, the original concept of cable and spring sets was severely perverted over the years, as companies tried to market it as a training tool for women and guys "into toning", which resulted in expanders that, to paraphrase the words of John Brookfield, "your aunt Betsy could pull for 10 good reps the first time she tried it". One can understand that this kind of gimmick sort of killed strandpulling in the eyes of serious, hard-core strength athletes.

However, I like to draw the parallel between cable gimmicks and pink 2-lb. dumbbells used for "power aerobic" classes. Just because some companies market a ridiculous dumbbell, no one attempts to claim that weight-lifting is useless and non-productive; yet, cables get a bad rap. A set of moderately strong cables will give any man a great workout, and strong ones will humble even the mightiest weight-lifter if he's unaccustomed to working with them. To put it smply, serious cable training will develop strength and size. Some of the strongest men in history have used cables - if it worked for them, it will work for you. It will enhance an existing weight-lifting program, or put the finishing “touches” on a physique forged through diligent use of iron, or as a strength and flexibility program unto itself, or combined with non-apparatus and bodyweight exercises.

Although many people credit the Father of Bodybuilding, Eugen Sandow, with the invention of strands, they have been around ever since Europe discovered rubber. Also, Sandow didn't really train with them that much - he just marketed them very well, and later seemed to claim that his magnificent physique was initially built with a chest expander. Thomas Inch and Fred Rollon were professional strongmen who relied heavily (in the latter case, exclusively) on cable training. The best old-time cable training courses were written by Alfred Danks, Joe Bonomo and Roy Noe, all available for free viewing on www.sandowplus.co.uk, as well as Earle Liederman, whose course I've been unable to find. Modern courses include John Brookfield's book Training With Cables for Strength and a section in Mike Brown's work Strength of Samson and How to Attain It.

If you're not convinced yet, here's a list of reasons for cable training:

- Cables provide a different type of resistance to weights and “hit” the muscles in a different way, plus they develop muscles that are difficult to “get to” with regular barbell/dumbbell exercises;

- Cable exercises are very effective at “pumping” individual muscles, which is beneficial as it provides the necessary flushing of the muscle with blood (and removal of metabolic waste);

- Cables are light and take up very little space, so they’re very portable, great for trainees who are frequently on the road for longer periods and want to get some training done (like myself);

- Cables are extremely versatile – they can be used to replicate virtually all weight-lifting exercises, plus a vast number of others that have no weighted equivalent. They also provide unlimited options regarding muscles worked, range of motion, etc.;

- Cables do not stress the joints and tendons the way heavy weights do (although they do provide excellent joint/tendon loading), and hence lend themselves better to speed or explosive work at lower risk of injury (e.g. cable ballistic squats vs. barbell ballistic squats);

- Cables allow you to train with limit or near-limit resistance without the risk of life-threatening injury: getting whacked by a poorly secured cable or handle is very, very painful, but highly unlikely to permanently cripple you;

- Cables enable you to exercise against resistance coming from all angles, unlike weights, where the resistance is provided by gravity (always downward);

- Cables allow you to increase/decrease resistance easily and safely during the exercise, simply by adjusting the length pulled (by adjusting the grip or, if a door attachment is used, by stepping further/closer to the door);

- Cables are very useful for grapplers, as the multi-directional resistance provided is similar to
that provided by an opponent;

- Many traditional cable movements develop flexibility along with strength, an important aspect of physical development often neglected by weightlifters (indeed, excessive flexibility can be detrimental to certain categories of strength athletes, so this is something that is seldom, if ever, trained);

- Cables can be used for isolation exercises that target only the muscle worked, or for compound, full-body exercises that require all the muscles to work in unison; they cover the entire spectrum.

Good cable sets can be bought from Lifeline, Ironmind and Mike Brown. Ironmind offers a high-quality steel spring set, while the other two companies have opted for rubber. Cable sets are not very expensive, so there are no excuses: grab one and start pumping some rubber!

Training Myths - My Take

I posted this not-so-short text on one of the forums that I frequent. It was inspired by a "discussion" that I had with some brain-washed fucktard on another forum that I frequent, as well as the general attitude among the posters on that forum. Yes, it is not a secret: dragondoor.com is one of my favorite forums, also one of the most frustrating. I have read excellent training advice there, but it seems that the people who actually train hard, lift heavy and know their shit are being drowned out by the morons who want people to kiss their ass because they bought a kettlebell, or to spout abuse at the "mullets" at the gym. It seems that having or wanting a finely moulded physique presents a sort of offense to these people. I also have a big problem with the down-right crappy layout of the forum, where threads just pile one atop the other. Whatever. I still go there on the random chance that one good post by Jack Reape or Dave Whitley or someone else won't get buried under a couple dozen threads about the "WTH effect".

I shall now delve into an analysis of cow excrement conceptions that abound on the internet. I’ve probably said before, but you should be subjected to at least one test of basic intelligence before they let you log onto the Web. Contrary to my previous beliefs, I have come to the conclusion that freedom of information is dangerous and that the formula:

Abundance of Information + Lack of Processing Capacities = Disaster

Is truer than ever in this era of accessible info.

Back when I was doing graphical design (of sorts), I “obtained” the last version of the Adobe Illustrator software. An excellent programme by anyone’s standards. However, I installed it onto my old computer which lacked sufficient processing capacities, so I would often lose hours of work due to crashes. It is the same way with morons reading stuff on the Web. I found a way out – bought a better computer. Most people don’t have the option of re-wiring their brain for proper function.

Statement no. 1:“The (insert exercise name 1) is not a functional movement. It should be replaced with (insert exercise name 2).”

I posted here a while back discussing the difference between “compound” and “functional”. I won’t delve into that again. A push-up is not more functional than a bench press, unless the press is performed with a very low weight. In this case you can benefit more from doing the push-up and you’re wasting your time on the bench. There is some carryover, but it’s not the same exercise. In much the same manner as there is carryover between the bench press and the military press, but using one to train for the other just doesn’t make sense. I will repeat myself and state that unless you can do 15-20 proper pushups (PROPER!!! i.e. none of the floor-humping crap) you have not earned the right to do bench presses.As for the definition of “functional”, a bench press will be immensely more “functional” to the powerlifter. The push-up will also serve some function, like improving shoulder stability and stuff. To a rock climber, a pullup will be more functional than the deadlift, especially a pullup on rafters or thick beams, or on two or three fingers, as it mimics the climbing pattern better. Now the deadlift is the King of Functional Exercises, judging from the genuflection it receives on the “functional fitness” sites, but in this instance it’s not “functional”.For the record, I prefer the use of the terms “general and specific physical preparedness”. Not that anyone cares.

Statement no. 2:“The bench press sucks!!! Military press is the way to go. It’s so much more functional.”

Okay, here are two general observations after studying a sizeable population of the anti-benching brigade:

a) They universally SUCK at the bench press;

b) They almost universally suck at the military/overhead press too. However, here the disadvantage is lower, as very few people ever do the standing overhead press. A bench press of 200 lbs. is hardly impressive in any setting. An overhead press of 132 lbs (yes, that’s two hands) will seem Herculean to people who have never tried it, or do it as an afterthought of heavy benching;

c) They say “How does lying on your back and pressing a weight correlate to real-life situations?” Well, how often do you press people overhead in real-life situations? Or am I just really sheltered?This is a continuation of the old “if I can’t do it, it can’t be good” mentality. The overhead press is a tremendous strength builder, but give each exercise its due.

Statement no. 3:“Weighted chinups build bigger biceps than barbell/dumbbell curls”

This can be disputed, but IMHO the answer is NO. Were this true, all the Pro Bodybuilders would switch to chinups. The actual answer is a happy medium – for max size, you need both compound and isolation exercises.“But my arms grew 2 inches since I substituted chinups for curls!”Yes. This happened because you used 5 lb. dumbbells for curls, then started training chinups with something called INTENSITY. Plus it’s not really hard to go from a 12” arm to a 14” arm.The winner of the Most Cretinous Response for the month of March was a guy on dragondoor.com, a useful forum that I occassionally visit. After I’d made a comment kinda along the lines of what I wrote above, he posted something along the lines of “no, ‘cause that’s not functional, ‘cause you wouldn’t climb a mountain using your biceps”. I sometimes shed a tear for the havoc all the “functional training” info has wreaked on the poor moronic minds of these unfortunates.

Statement no. 4:“Bodybuilding is ridiculous! I hate those mullets!”

Almost everyone who states this is a reformed “muscle pumper” who lost years and years of training in futile efforts to follow the routines of the Champs. Frustrated and experiencing diarrhea from all the overpriced supplements they spent their cash on, they turned against their former brethren and now despise them with a passion. Come on. They’re the same as you. So maybe now you stumbled on the Secret that’ll take your top deadlift from 200 to 220 (whoopee). About 3% of you will actually attain decent muscular development. Don’t you have some compassion for someone who’s doing the same mistake you used to? Were you not once worthy of the term “mullet” yourself?The truth is, most of you are still closet bodybuilders. You’re still after the elusive 18” arm and writhing, massive pectorals. Don’t lie, I know. That’s why you keep changing even the “functional” routines you’re on. That’s why you post your “functional” workouts, but omit the few concentration curls you sneak in somewhere towards the end. You can say no, kick and scream, but there’s no lying to yourself.

Statement no. 5: – from the opposite end of the spectrum:“Bodyweight guys have hardly any muscle. Weights are better for building muscle.”

or another variant:

“Bodyweight exercises create small, hard muscles, while weights produce bigger muscles with less shape”

Although I see the fallacy of this statement, it’s hard to argue against it with someone who’s a firm believer in it. Many of the guys pushing BW stuff don’t look like someone who exercises regularly (or, in fact, at all). Furey is fat and appears to lack muscle mass. Pavel is pretty thin, with wiry muscles. So are most of the RKC dudes, although they’re not BW-only, but the misinformed group kettlebells and BW exercises in the same category. Why this occurs is unknown to me, I can venture a guess that they think of these exercises as “non-barbell”. The mind of the idiot is superbly complex in some areas.I’m already boring everyone by repeating myself, so here I go again: resistance is resistance. Load is defined as a percentage of the maximum resistance opposed (lifted) for a number of reps, like 60% of 3RM. Whether you use weights, BW, cars, dogs, cables, or something else is pretty irrelevant. Now many BW-only guys think that pushups, pullups and situps are al they have to do for high reps to be muscular and ripped. Think again. The progressive system must be employed, i.e. once you can do many reps with a certain resistance, make it harder. This is common sense. Pumping out 300 pushups or situps a day won’t make you bigger, just like doing bench presses with 50 lbs. won’t get you very far.Most of the guys asking this question are frustrated ex-weight-trainers who failed to use the progressive principle and made no progress whatsoever. If you didn’t build any muscle using weights, don’t you think the progression method you’re (not) using is to blame, instead of the means of exercise?

Another point: mostly-BW athletes come from combat sports or professions like law enforcement, military, etc. Combat athletes consciously avoid muscle gain (usually), as it would place them into a higher weight category, hence at a disadvantage. “Tactical” professions require muscular endurance rather than strength, plus the nature of the job (lack of sleep, irregular eating patterns, high stress) sabotages their recovery and muscle-building abilities. Think about it, there is a reason for everything.

I’m sure I’ll think of more bullshit claims. But I leave those for another day.

My Thoughts on Functional Exercise

Over the years I've read more than my fair share of discussions that have prompted me to re-evaluate my ideas on "functional strength". This is a topic that gets discussed frequently in the strength training communities, and almost inevitably ends up in a pissing contest with all sides throwing out ridiculous arguments at each other. I will try to offer my definition of "functional strength" and "strength" in general; if you disagree, please observe the post description (the letters under the blog title).

I would like to state three things at the very start:

1) There are many, many exercises that target muscles in isolation for the purpose of bringing them up to the overall development level of the body, either in terms of strength or in terms of size. A good example would be the dumbbell concentration curl for the biceps. There is nothing wrong with the practicing of these exercises, and I encourage trainees to use them. Sure, some of them develop aesthetic aspects of the muscles worked with little increase in strength. Also, some people are more concerned with appearance than with strength. Some are not really concerned with strength at all, although it is impossible to develop a muscle without increasing its strength to at least some degree. Different people have different choices. I don't focus on the aesthetic part of exercising, although I try to maintain the size and shape that I have, but I have full support for people who do. their goal is just as valid as mine. To say that these exercises have no place in someone's training is an ignorant and narrow-minded standpoint to say the least. Unless you're a strength/conditioning/fitness trainer with some influence in the "game", you shouldn't really be bashing the way other people train. The best you can do is offer some advice based on personal experience.

2) There is no such thing as "dysfunctional exercise" (which, I guess, would be the opposite of "functional"). The function of a tricep kickback is the delopment of certain aspects of the tricep muscle. The tricep kickback, when performed properly and with appropriate muscle tension, can bring about this change in the tricep. Therefore, it is "functional", as it satisfies that particular function. The function of the barbell back squat is to develop strength in the legs and to some degree core and posterior chain, add mass to the lower body and, indirectly, upper body, even effect a testosterone release. For the listed tasks, the barbell back squat is "functional", whereas the tricep kickback is pretty useless. Using the barbell back squat for tricep development, on the other hand, is a waste of time. I'm sure you understand what I'm trying to say. You could argue that the tricep kickback has limited carryover to athletic performance (a vague term if there ever was any - who could be stupid, ignorant and superfluous enough to group ALL sports and activities in existence under the umbrella term "athletic performance" in this context?), but that has NOTHING to do with "functionality". After all, bodybuilding is an athletic endeavour too, right?

3) I believe in all kinds of strength, from max effort to endurance. One thing that particularly annoys me is the concept of "relative strength". You know, the old "if I weigh 100 lbs and lift 150 lbs I'm much stronger than the 200-lb guy lifting 270". Or even my favorite: "if I weight 100 lbs and can do 10 pushups, I'm just as strong as the 200-lb guy who can also do 10". I never really grasped the concept of "less is more" in this sense. Basic physiology will reveal that just because a man weighs 200 lbs., he doesn't have DOUBLE the factors that effect strength output. This idea ignores minor differences, like height, bone size, etc. Yes, my ego would soar at the idea of the 350 lbs. guy who squats 500 lbs. being weaker than myself, but it just isn't true.Okay, so what forms can this "functional strength" take? Strength can be expressed in the following forms:

Maximum dynamic effort - "grind" lifts: this is the basic idea behind the bench, squat, deadlift, bent-over row, curl, etc., etc. Sure, you need explosiveness to blast through the sticking points and the best powerlifters in the world work on this aspect extensively, but the bar moves slowly thoughout the movement, sometimes stalling. This type of strength is developed by training with heavy poundages for low-rep sets, sometimes even singles. For the big compound lifts, accessory work is usually done for assistant muscle groups (also with low-rep sets, moderately heavy to heavy weight). Speed work, necessary for overcoming the insufferable "sticking points" (i.e. weak portions of the lift), focuses also on low-rep sets performed as fast as possible. It is estimated that the heaviest weight a movement can be performed explosively with is around 60% of the "grind" one-rep max, although I'm sure this varies immensely across the board.Not all "grind" lifts are done with weights, though. This category would certainly include non-plyometric bodyweight exercises - one-armed pullups and pushups, one-leg squats and pistols, handstand pushups, as well as gymnastic exercises on the rings. It's not what you're exercising with, it's the type of effort that makes the difference - al these exercises require a lot of muscle working together in order to "muscle out" that max-effort rep.

Maximum dynamic effort - explosive lifts: these would be the Olympic lifting staples, like the clean and jerk and snatch, also to include variations: power clean, power snatch, various high pulls, etc. The idea is to move as much weight as possible using a "quick" lift, a superbly coordinated effort of several muscle groups that hoists the bar to a sufficient height for the athlete to be able to get under it and complete the lift. The clean and jerk consists of two separate rapid motions - the "clean" part, where the bar is brought to the "rack" position at shoulder height, and the "jerk" part, where the athlete dips beneath the bar and explodes it to an overhead lockout position. The snatch is probably one of the most marvellous displays of athleticism around, where the bar is brought from the ground overhead in a single explosion of strength and power. The same movements can be performed with dumbbells or kettlebells. These quick lifts can be combined with "grinds", resulting in the clean and strict press, probably the single most productive exercise around for overall strength and even size. The quick lifts are best trained with low-rep, multiple sets, as they are pretty demanding CNS-wise.

Bodyweight plyometrics would also be included here, although not those of the repetitive kind. Maximum depth jumps would qualify, as would the vault event in gymnastics.

Maximum static strength - overcoming isometrics: in this type of exercise, the athlete is attempting to lift or otherwise overcome a supramaximal resistance in a given position. Since the resistance is supramaximal, i.e. more than the maximal resistance he/she can overcome in that position, no movement occurs (but a whole load of muscular effort). The main disadvantage with this type of exercising is the relative nature of the effort. If you're doing maximal-effort pushing agaist a wall, how can you determine if you're pushing harder than in the previous session? This issue can be alleviated by using loaded barbells/dumbbells, but then progress can only be measured in exercises that resemble barbell/dumbbell exercises, while the greatest value of isometrics is that you can work muscles and joints from ALL angles. To resolve this issue, Pete Sisco and John Little, the authors of Power Factor Training, devised a machine that measures strength output in isometric overcoming holds. I have not used this device, so I cannot vouch for its effectiveness. The good old Bullworker is also convenient. Training protocols with isometrics usually quote the 3-6 second duration range as most effective for max efforts.

Maximum static strength - yielding isometrics: here the objective is to work against active resistance. Again, no movement occurs, but instead of you working against an immovable resistance, the resistance tries to move against your effort to stop this motion. Obviously, you have to have an active resistance to work against. The most commonly used solution are free weights - place a barbell loaded to a supramaximal weight in a power rack, get under it, lie on a bench, take it off the pins and hold for time. Make sure you have a very reliable power rack. The obvious disadvantage of this method is the fact that for max strength work you need equipment - weights, and a lot more than you usually use, as well as a strong power rack or some other support system.

Partial lifts - a combination of static and dynamic strength: supramaximal repetitions within a limited range of motion (shorter than that used for the "real" exercise) is a method that combines both static and dynamic training. This would include quarter-squats, push presses off the rack, overhead press lockouts bench press lockouts, below and above-the-knee deadlifts, etc. These are usually done in the strongest range of motion, as their purpose is to "skip" the weaker range (including the sticking point) and overload the muscle in a position where it is capable of more work. They also get the CNS accustomed to the "feel" of a much heavier weight.

Dynamic strength-endurance - repetition method: this includes high-repetition sets of barbell, dumbbell and/or bodyweight exercises with the primary purpose of developing work capacity in the areas being worked, but also for increasing the capacity of the cardiovascular system to perform work at a certain intensity. This kind of stamina is vital to competitors in all sports where repetitive moderate intensity effort is required for prolonged periods of time, such as rowing, grappling, boxing, etc. It is also great for fat loss "without the dishonor of running", to paraphrase a popular maxim. Strength-endurance is definitely a form of strength - even the powerlifter, the paradigm of one-rep "grind" effort, needs this type of strength, as a powerlifting meet can last an entire day and entail nine max-effort movements (or better) plus a ton of warmup and maintenance work. The exercises are usually performed explosively, with low to moderate weights.

Static strength-endurance - yielding and overcoming efforts for time: although some would argue that this type of training can even be counter-productive, many sports and athletic activities rely heavily on "isometric endurance". Think of the grip of a judoka on his opponent's lapel, or the stance of the karate practitioner. Definitely a must.

Carries for time or distance - combining static and dynamic strength-endurance: Dan John, the celebrated strength and athletics coach and former discus great, said that there are three ways of developing strength: lifting something overhead, lifting something off the ground, and carrying something for distance and/or time. And if he said it, you better believe he's right. Farmer and yoke carries are part of strongman competition now, and justly so. They have been building tremendous amounts of strength for centuries now.

Non-gravitational resistance - elastic resistance: ah, my pet cables. I love cable exercises not only for their convenience, but for the way they develop strength from any possible angle. Gravity is an excellent provider of resistance (and it's free and always available), but the cable creates its own direction of resistance depending upon the direction it's placed in. Cables also provide a way to work around the problem of diminishing muscular effort as the movement progresses, which is present with barbells: the further you stretch them, the more resistance you encounter, so you're effectively overloading the stronger part of the movement while remaining able to overcome the lower resistance at your sticking point.

Non-gravitational resistance - resistance of materials: this would include bending of iron and steel bars, nails, rebar and the like, ripping of telephone books and cards in halves and quarters, etc. In other words, it is not the weight of the object that provides the resistance - it is the properties of the material from which the object is made. One could argue that cable training falls into the same category, but I think they should be viewed separately. The resistance offered by an iron bar does not increase as it is bent, and you don't require the super-concentrated total-body effort required for bending and ripping to stretch cables (even heavy ones).

Human resistance: this is probably the most underrated form of strength training there is, and also one of the most effective. It is developed by pitting your strength directly against another human, as in wrestling and other grappling sports, and combines most of the expressions of strength described above, plus entails an element of technique too. In my grappling years I encountered a few guys who had immense "human throwing strength". They never lifted weights, or if they did used light poundages, and most of them definitely did not have the advantage of superior technique - their throw attempts were relatively slow and inefficient. Yet when you tried to force them into a disadvantageous position they seemed rooted to the ground. Their grip was vice-like, despite never doing grip-specific work apart from... grappling. I would advise all would-be strong guys and gals to give some form of grappling a go. It develops strength, endurance and a whole new outlook on sports and life in general.

This is by no means a comprehensive list. I would greatly appreciate if someone would think of something to add to this ramble. In conclusion, a person who wishes to be considered "strong" must train for all sorts of strength. Of course, if your strength training is taken up to "improve athletic performance", try to determine which of these expressions of strength suits your particular sport best, then work it into the ground.