Ideas to work on stamina

[iron_leg_dave]

[QUOTE=MasterKiller;883600]That’s a hokey answer, Iron Leg.

We use different variations of Tabata (20 second on, 10 second off) intervals. For example:

1st set (20 secs): Jumping jacks

break 10 secs

2nd set (20 secs): Punch heavy bag

break 10 secs

3rd set (20 secs): Kettlebell cleans

break 10 secs

4th set (20 secs): Punch and sprawl

break 10 secs

5th set (20 secs): Knees on Heavy bag

break 10 secs

Repeat this 3 times.[/QUOTE]

Lol hokey?

What is hokey?

You can’t gain stamina without training mental endurance. Most atheletes train the two simultaneously and the latter quite incidentally.

When it comes to gong fu, for centuries atleast, it has been concidered important to have more mental endurance than you should need.

It’s not hokey, it’s one approach.

[bakxierboxer]

[QUOTE=JGTevo;884155]Sure. Here’s your proof. Go check out fights from
MMA
Kickboxing
Boxing
Muay Thai

To name a few. Then go ask a trainer or expert from any of these how important aerobic endurance is to their fighters.[/quote]

The only “problem” with that is that I couldn’t possibly care less about those venues.

This is getting ridiculous. You’re avoiding the facts by side-stepping my points. Even if I was defining it as such, it’d still be irrelevant. My definition of a fight has nothing to do with proof of any all-anaerobic fighting styles being effective.

I’m “avoiding” nothing.
I’m simply highlighting the elements and inherent conflicts of what you write.

Find me proof of it. I’ll throw ya one more definition too, testimony from a friend of a dude who did it, or a couple of low quality videos of people fighting no-name jerks, doesn’t count.

By the same token, I don’t know you, your friend, or his dude that did it.
That doesn’t even qualify as second-hand “info”, let alone “proof”.

Again, you’re either avoiding my points intentionally or you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying.

I’m not sure how you get the idea that I’m “avoiding” your points when I’m “confronting” them/you with their inconsistencies.

That was an example of the uncertainty of a street fight. There are no checks and balances to make sure it is as fair as possible.

I believe that was a point that I elaborated.

You can take a video of an SPM guy destroying another guy but unlike MMA/Boxing, we have no idea what the other guy was capable of in the first place.

It would be reasonable to assume that the guy who got destroyed was “less capable” than the SPM guy who destroyed him.

Thus it is irrelevant. Even if they were both amazing, it provides no proof whatsoever as we have no idea who these people are and we’ve never seen them fight before.

It’s not irrelevant as to seeing just who won that particular encounter.

Depends entirely on the person and the situation.

“That’s my line!” (already used it twice in this thread)

Many boxers/MMA fighters throughout the years have talked about their feelings before a fight. It’s usually very intense. I’m not a psychologist but it seems a little ridiculous to me to think that there is a dramatic difference in the experience.

Interesting?.. Not.

I put equal weight between them based on documented evidence of use. Compubox stats alone will prove this. We have no documented evidence of street fights to include in this.

Try hitting your next opponent with that box of stats.

So you prefer to predict an unpredictable future? Beautiful. I’m sure you know everyone whom you’ll ever have to fight.

I don’t believe that I’ve ever known anyone I’ve fought, although a few have decided to “make my acquaintance” or take lessons afterwards.

I wasn’t going to define it except to establish the line between counter-fighting being a seperate concept than “self-defense”.

Okay, although it implies giving the opponent the initiative.
Counter-attacking is a bit more specific.

[bakxierboxer]

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;884159]Lets make it clear, BOTH aerobic and anerobic is crucial for a well rounded fighter.[/quote]

I can easily “agree” with that… although there might be a bit of a quibble over the relative weight that should be given to each.

Fighting is not considered an endurance event.

100% agreed.

Certainly MMA with its 5 min rounds is more stamina-oriented than a 3 min boxing or MT match.

Matters of intense interest for those who are interested by them.

Still, there is no denying the anerobic energy used in the vast majority of the techniques, particularly striking.

I’ll never try to deny that.
I’ve been known to occasionally jabber about anaerobics over the last 40 or so years.

I do believe that trainers tend to over focus on the aerobic part, especially with road work.

There’s got to be “a reason” they do that… I’m not sure it’s a good one.

You get enough aerobic conditoning with the time spend doing bag work and pad work and sparring, road work adds very little to all that.

Agreed.

[sanjuro_ronin]

We have to be specific in our training and as such, a person training for 3 x 5 minute rounds trains with a more aerobic context, a person training for 2-3 min rounds will probably have a well balanced anerobic/aerobic ratio, whereas someone training to end a fight in as quick as possible manner must focus on explosive power and anerobic conditioning.

HIIT is ideal for the short burst fighter and in a modified way for the moderate and endurance fighter too.
Its just the ratio that changes in the training depending of the specific goals in mind.

[system]

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;884355]We have to be specific in our training and as such, a person training for 3 x 5 minute rounds trains with a more aerobic context, a person training for 2-3 min rounds will probably have a well balanced anerobic/aerobic ratio, whereas someone training to end a fight in as quick as possible manner must focus on explosive power and anerobic conditioning.

HIIT is ideal for the short burst fighter and in a modified way for the moderate and endurance fighter too.
Its just the ratio that changes in the training depending of the specific goals in mind.[/QUOTE]

if you consider why HIIT “works”, it seems to have to do with the fact that it requires the physiology to work in a non-habituating capacity; in other words, if you do a 3 mile run, assuming you are capable of it, after a certain point, the cardiorespiratory system “gets” what is happening, and acclimates; once it does this, in a way, the system has become more efficient, it can expend less energy to achieve the desired outcome - it’s kinda like the difference in gas use accelerating up to 60 and then maintianing it at 60; by doing HIIT, you are never allowing for habituation, you are “forcing” the system to “improvise” each time; by analogy, when doing neuromuscular re-ed work with clients, I subjectively find that by keeping the number of reps low (3-5 for kids, 8-12 for adults), whatever we are doing doesn’t loose it’s edge, so to speak: it maintains a certain degree of “newness”, which is what forces the system to actively learn each time as opposed to relying on some sort of “recall” (assuming the task is neither too hard or too easy to begin with, of course) - once the system understands what it is doing, it can start to use other compensatory patterns to cut corners; in a way, this approach can be tiring because of the degree of mental focus required, and as such it’s a good way to simulate the reality of unpredictable stressors that one may encounter in the “real world”

[JGTevo]

The only “problem” with that is that I couldn’t possibly care less about those venues.

Then you’re ignoring the only comparable evidence out there.

I’m “avoiding” nothing.
I’m simply highlighting the elements and inherent conflicts of what you write.

Such conflicts are entirely irrelevant to the main argument.

By the same token, I don’t know you, your friend, or his dude that did it.
That doesn’t even qualify as second-hand “info”, let alone “proof”.

The credibility and experience of the people involved is important when it comes to scientific data, whether you know these people or not. They have documented credentials.

I’m not sure how you get the idea that I’m “avoiding” your points when I’m “confronting” them/you with their inconsistencies.

It’s basically like you’re changing the entirety of the subject to focus on misinterpretations of less important points, instead of the major point which I made - Which was that fighting is both an aerobic and anaerobic exercise.

It would be reasonable to assume that the guy who got destroyed was “less capable” than the SPM guy who destroyed him.

When it comes to style-vs-style, all things being equal, the technique wins out. Realistically all things cannot be equal, but one of the things competitions do, is try to make it as equal as possible - which usually makes it so that the better technique wins out.

It’s not irrelevant as to seeing just who won that particular encounter.

Without factual data for comparison, it is not yet relevant.

Interesting?.. Not.

Then don’t respond to it?

Try hitting your next opponent with that box of stats.

The statistics are a great representation of how a boxing match works. When you factor in the amount of punches per three minute round, you get a good idea of how much time is spent not punching. It’s scientific data to assess how much of boxing is anaerobic.

You should be very concerned with the scientific method, if you’re a teacher or trainer in the martial arts.

I don’t believe that I’ve ever known anyone I’ve fought, although a few have decided to “make my acquaintance” or take lessons afterwards.

Oh geez, you’re just a badass aren’t you. :rolleyes:
Then how exactly is the “More definitive” “outlook” possible, when you don’t prepare for the worst possible opponent you can face?

[Mr_Punch]

[QUOTE=cjurakpt;884455]if you consider why HIIT “works”…[/QUOTE]Interesting! Is there any evidence to suggest this would work with skills too? It would explain why I find short combo punching a lot more satisfying (and I suspect useful) than repeating the same punch 100 times, and why Japanese baseball players suck when they practise again and again and again and again and again…

[bakxierboxer]

[quote]The only “problem” with that is that I couldn’t possibly care less about those venues.

Then you’re ignoring the only comparable evidence out there.[/quote]

YOU think they’re “comparable”, I do not.

[quote]I’m “avoiding” nothing.
I’m simply highlighting the elements and inherent conflicts of what you write.

Such conflicts are entirely irrelevant to the main argument.[/quote]

Not when they’re the sum total of your so-called “argument”.
This “discussion” is an “argument” only in the sense that we disagree.
It’s far from being anything at all like a logical argument or course of reasoning.

[quote]By the same token, I don’t know you, your friend, or his dude that did it. That doesn’t even qualify as second-hand “info”, let alone “proof”.

The credibility and experience of the people involved is important when it comes to scientific data, whether you know these people or not. They have documented credentials.[/quote]

Which you haven’t presented.

[quote]I’m not sure how you get the idea that I’m “avoiding” your points when I’m “confronting” them/you with their inconsistencies.

It’s basically like you’re changing the entirety of the subject to focus on misinterpretations of less important points, instead of the major point which I made - Which was that fighting is both an aerobic and anaerobic exercise.[/quote]

“You can’t have it both ways!”

[quote]It would be reasonable to assume that the guy who got destroyed was “less capable” than the SPM guy who destroyed him.

When it comes to style-vs-style, all things being equal, the technique wins out. Realistically all things cannot be equal, but one of the things competitions do, is try to make it as equal as possible - which usually makes it so that the better technique wins out.[/quote]

???
OTOH, perhaps said “better technique” is what might actually make such a match unequal?

[quote]It’s not irrelevant as to seeing just who won that particular encounter.

Without factual data for comparison, it is not yet relevant.[/quote]

One winner, one loser… those look like “facts” to me.

[quote]Interesting?.. Not.

Then don’t respond to it?[/quote]

Best thing you’ve said to this point.
I think I’ll take you up on it.

[quote]Try hitting your next opponent with that box of stats.

The statistics are a great representation of how a boxing match works. When you factor in the amount of punches per three minute round, you get a good idea of how much time is spent not punching. It’s scientific data to assess how much of boxing is anaerobic.[/quote]

… and seemingly provides all the justification you’re looking for to support your position(s).

You should be very concerned with the scientific method, if you’re a teacher or trainer in the martial arts.

Empiricism can do quite a bit in terms of knowing what to teach.

[quote]I don’t believe that I’ve ever known anyone I’ve fought, although a few have decided to “make my acquaintance” or take lessons afterwards.

Oh geez, you’re just a badass aren’t you.[/quote]

I don’t think I’ve ever said or inferred that.
As a matter of fact, if I wasn’t a relatively agreeable sort, that kind of thing wouldn’t happen.

Then how exactly is the “More definitive” “outlook” possible, when you don’t prepare for the worst possible opponent you can face?

I think you meant the “toughest” or “best” opponent…
“SOP” for folks training in MA… or it used to be.

[bakxierboxer]

[quote]Originally Posted by JGTevo
I have experience in Jook Lum SPM and I understand how much is anaerobic.

and

However when it comes to fighting, it’s one of those systems untested in modern times.

Who’d you learn Jook Lum SPM from?[/quote]

You never did answer that…

[JGTevo]

[QUOTE=bakxierboxer;884612]YOU think they’re “comparable”, I do not[/quote]

Thats cool. You can live in ignorance. You’re ignoring the only scientifically comparable evidence available. Whether I think they’re comparable or not is irrelevant. MMA is Fighting, with rules. It’s comparable right there. The degree to which it can be compared is subjective, but it is comparable.

Not when they’re the sum total of your so-called “argument”.

Fortunately they’re not.

Which you haven’t presented.

Do I really need to? Organizations like the UFC, people with credentials who put together fights who have been in the business of putting together fights for decades… Are you honestly suggesting that the reputation alone does not give them credibility?

OTOH, perhaps said “better technique” is what might actually make such a match unequal?

Then that would go toward proving the effectiveness of that technique… which is what the UFC used to be about, to see what the best “Style” Is. Which is a great proving ground for SPM.

One winner, one loser… those look like “facts” to me.

Those “Facts” don’t say anything about the effectiveness of any technique or idea given the multitude of factors that could influence the match. Size, Strength, Experience. Any style can win against any style in a non-professional enviorment.

The outcome of a match is not enough to come to any conclusion about how effective a style is.

… and seemingly provides all the justification you’re looking for to support your position(s).

It’s not all, but it’s one point, backed up my scientific data, to back up my position.

Empiricism can do quite a bit in terms of knowing what to teach.

It’s incredibly limited to base that entirely on your own experiences.

I don’t think I’ve ever said or inferred that.
As a matter of fact, if I wasn’t a relatively agreeable sort, that kind of thing wouldn’t happen.

Right, so have you ever lost a fight?

I think you meant the “toughest” or “best” opponent…
“SOP” for folks training in MA… or it used to be.

Arguing semantics now? :rolleyes:

You never did answer that…

I’d rather not. The people on this forum who know me personally in r/l, know who my teachers are/were. I’ve had one teacher in Jook Lum SPM and trained with two others informally… but I have a lot of strong opinions and I’m a fairly abrasive person so in respect to them, I’d rather they not be named. To be fair, my experience in it is incomplete as I had to stop training, but I did train for a significant amount of time, and I was very impressed with the level of the instructors I’ve trained with… But even if I train something and I use it in a real fight I still will reserve my judgement for when I see it tested, or I personally test it, more thoroughly. As of now it’s theoretical for me and I think it has some great theories, but I also train what has been proven to work…

[system]

[QUOTE=Mr Punch;884553]Interesting! Is there any evidence to suggest this would work with skills too? It would explain why I find short combo punching a lot more satisfying (and I suspect useful) than repeating the same punch 100 times, and why Japanese baseball players suck when they practise again and again and again and again and again…[/QUOTE]

well, for skill acquisition specifically, there is a great deal of research in the motor learning literature regarding practice schedules: duration, intensity, frequency, scheduling, etc.; one general trend that seems to have emerged (and, TBH, I think so-called “common sense” would tell you this anyway), that when presented with, say, 3 different novel motor tasks, practicing them one at a time for, say 25 trials each (called “blocked” practice), as opposed to practicing 75 trials of all 3 mixed up (“random”, gets you better at each one initially, but the ability to retain the skill say a week later, as well as to extrapolate onto another novel similar skill (and a lot of debate exists as to what constitutes the parameters of similarity, of course) is better for “random” learners;
now, this also needs to be considered in context of “abstract’ versus “real-world” skills: many of these studies use highly abstract skills, like moving a cursor through a maze or some-such; not surprisingly, when the studies used 'real world” skills, the findings were often not nearly as neat or statistically significant, and a lot of the discussions at the end revolved around how complex motor skill acquisition varied greatly from one person to the next, and it was often hard to explain why this was the case (although it is something that intuitively we understand); one possibility was the notion of contextual interference, which suggests that environmental parameters are at least as important as those of the skill itself; finally, some researchers suggest that at the very beginning, blocked-like practice is necessary to help people “get the idea” of the movement, but as soon as this has occurred, to immediately switch to random practice, and increase the degree of contextual interference as soon as possible to as high a level as possible without it becoming too much

again, i don’t think that there is anything in the above that is all that revolutionary, just that the research appears to confirm what good coaches seem to come up with instinctively…

[bakxierboxer]

[QUOTE=JGTevo;884649]Thats cool. You can live in ignorance. You’re ignoring the only scientifically comparable evidence available. Whether I think they’re comparable or not is irrelevant. MMA is Fighting, with rules. It’s comparable right there. The degree to which it can be compared is subjective, but it is comparable.
[/quote]

Ummmm… you can’t mix “scientific” with “subjective”.

Scientific evidence is/must-be “objective”… real, hard, physical evidence/substance.

“Subjective” means “in your mind” and not having anything to do with “reality”.

Do I really need to? Organizations like the UFC, people with credentials who put together fights who have been in the business of putting together fights for decades… Are you honestly suggesting that the reputation alone does not give them credibility?

All anyone needs to do to “judge” them is to watch a match.
A minute or two while channel-surfing is usually more than enough to show that there’s been no substantial change in any of them.
By the way, a “reputation” is also “subjective”, and is usually founded on the (subjective) opinions of the “general public”.

It’s not all, but it’s one point, backed up my scientific data, to back up my position.

I contend that your “position” is an “opinion”.

It’s incredibly limited to base that entirely on your own experiences.

My experiences added to what I’ve garnered from the experiential knowledge of my teachers.

Right, so have you ever lost a fight?

Yes.
Have you?

Arguing semantics now? :rolleyes:

“Semantics” is not a dirty word.
At its base, it is concerned with the meaning of words.
“Higher level” semantics gets into phrases, symbols, etc.

I’d rather not. The people on this forum who know me personally in r/l, know who my teachers are/were. I’ve had one teacher in Jook Lum SPM and trained with two others informally…

All of whom are still without a name.

but I have a lot of strong opinions

That much is obvious.
Their foundations don’t seem to be that strong.

I’m a fairly abrasive person

Not particularly… just remarkably stubborn in sticking to your opinions.

so in respect to them, I’d rather they not be named. To be fair, my experience in it is incomplete as I had to stop training, but I did train for a significant amount of time, and I was very impressed with the level of the instructors I’ve trained with…

That’s nice of you.
By the way, just what do you consider to be “a significant amount of time”?

But even if I train something and I use it in a real fight I still will reserve my judgement for when I see it tested, or I personally test it, more thoroughly.

A technique either works, or it doesn’t.
Either result is “grist for the mill”.

As of now it’s theoretical for me and I think it has some great theories, but I also train what has been proven to work…

“Theoretical” means “not practical” or “speculative”.
Your additional wording does nothing at all to further anything you’ve said to this point.

I think I’m going to take you up on your earlier suggestion and simply ignore you.
(aside from looking to see what you consider “a significant amount of time”)

[JGTevo]

Ummmm… you can’t mix “scientific” with “subjective”.

Without sufficient scientific evidence you have to. There are several aspects of MMA which are undeniably similar to real fighting. Others, it can be argued for or against.

I contend that your “position” is an “opinion”.

Not saying it isn’t. My original position was that fighting was both anaerobic and aerobic. Which is a fact. Everything since then has been my opinion on how important it is, based on the only scientifically comparable evidence(MMA, Boxing, Recorded Matches, Trainer/Fighter Experiences).

Yes.
Have you?

Absolutely, who hasn’t? Losing helps us grow.

“Semantics” is not a dirty word.
At its base, it is concerned with the meaning of words.
“Higher level” semantics gets into phrases, symbols, etc.

I understand the definition, I just didn’t see the point in bringing it up.

That much is obvious.
Their foundations don’t seem to be that strong.

In your opinion.

That’s nice of you.
By the way, just what do you consider to be “a significant amount of time”?

Two years.

A technique either works, or it doesn’t.
Either result is “grist for the mill”.

Techniques have a tendency to work incredibly well in controlled situations.

[bakxierboxer]

[QUOTE=JGTevo;884690]Without sufficient scientific evidence you have to.[/quote]

Actually, what you have is “insufficient evidence” to make any conclusion other than that you don’t have enough evidence.

Not saying it isn’t. My original position was that fighting was both anaerobic and aerobic. Which is a fact. Everything since then has been my opinion on how important it is…

Versus my opinion.
The difference is in the relative importance and percentage of use.

Absolutely, who hasn’t? Losing helps us grow.

If that “growth” is to correct whatever deficiencies led to the loss.

I understand the definition, I just didn’t see the point in bringing it up.

Something called “understanding”… specifically applied as to what we read and write.

In your opinion.

We’ve all got those.

Two years.

Ok… now I know what you think is significant.
That’s one answer.

Techniques have a tendency to work incredibly well in controlled situations.

The general idea of learning a style is to learn to make it work “as needed”.
In some respects, this means learning to control the situation.

NOW I can put you on “Ignore”.

[JGTevo]

Ahh, bakxierboxer, I have never in my life had anyone who argued about nothing before. You could’ve brought one piece of scientific evidence to support your points, but you have none.

Actually, what you have is “insufficient evidence” to make any conclusion other than that you don’t have enough evidence.

That’d be true if we were talking about a single conclusion. The comparison between fighting and MMA is comprised of multiple conclusions, all of which are in support of fighting being equally aerobic and anaerobic.

Versus my opinion.
The difference is in the relative importance and percentage of use.

Yep.

If that “growth” is to correct whatever deficiencies led to the loss.

I’d suggest you re-register in the forums under the name, “Mr. Obvious”.

Something called “understanding”… specifically applied as to what we read and write.

Are you trying to make people who read this thread understand, or me? I’ve understood all of the blatantly obvious points you’ve brought up.

I could post the definition of “Understanding”, and it’d have as much relevance to this discussion, which is none when you’re stating something someone already knows or should know.

We’ve all got those.

Really?!

The general idea of learning a style is to learn to make it work “as needed”.
In some respects, this means learning to control the situation.

Which is completely different from the “Controlled Situation” I spoke of. Outside in the real world, there are variables beyond your control. In the gym, these variables do not exist.

NOW I can put you on “Ignore”.

Then why even bother to respond in the first place? Just to satisfy your ego?

[sanjuro_ronin]

[QUOTE=cjurakpt;884455]if you consider why HIIT “works”, it seems to have to do with the fact that it requires the physiology to work in a non-habituating capacity; in other words, if you do a 3 mile run, assuming you are capable of it, after a certain point, the cardiorespiratory system “gets” what is happening, and acclimates; once it does this, in a way, the system has become more efficient, it can expend less energy to achieve the desired outcome - it’s kinda like the difference in gas use accelerating up to 60 and then maintianing it at 60; by doing HIIT, you are never allowing for habituation, you are “forcing” the system to “improvise” each time; by analogy, when doing neuromuscular re-ed work with clients, I subjectively find that by keeping the number of reps low (3-5 for kids, 8-12 for adults), whatever we are doing doesn’t loose it’s edge, so to speak: it maintains a certain degree of “newness”, which is what forces the system to actively learn each time as opposed to relying on some sort of “recall” (assuming the task is neither too hard or too easy to begin with, of course) - once the system understands what it is doing, it can start to use other compensatory patterns to cut corners; in a way, this approach can be tiring because of the degree of mental focus required, and as such it’s a good way to simulate the reality of unpredictable stressors that one may encounter in the “real world”[/QUOTE]

Absolutely correct, though most people tend to “pace” their HIIT.
Everyone talks about the Tabata protocol because its the one that got all those awesome results, yet very few people do HIIT in that method.

[sanjuro_ronin]

[QUOTE=Mr Punch;884553]Interesting! Is there any evidence to suggest this would work with skills too? It would explain why I find short combo punching a lot more satisfying (and I suspect useful) than repeating the same punch 100 times, and why Japanese baseball players suck when they practise again and again and again and again and again…[/QUOTE]

It depends on what you are working for, long term or short term retention.
If you are looking for short term retention then doing “100’s of reps over a short period” works great, but if you are looking for long term retention then “consistencty over time” is the key with the actual quantity not matter all that much.

[IronFist]

I didn’t read any replies in this thread so maybe this has been said already.

If you want increased endurance in an event, you should train in ways that simulate that event.

For example, if you want more endurance for fighting, don’t train to run 10 miles, because fighting takes way more energy than running does. You’ll increase the amount you can run, but you won’t have any more endurance in your fight.

Similarly, if someone could run 5 miles but wanted to run 10, they wouldn’t train by sprinting and jumping rope, because those don’t approximate distance running.

If you want more endurance for fighting, train by fighting/sparring or if you can’t, train buy jumping rope or doing Kettlebell snatches or something that approximates the energy usage that you find in fighting.

Not trying to tell you what to do, just trying to save you from wasting your time.

[sanjuro_ronin]

[QUOTE=IronFist;884915]I didn’t read any replies in this thread so maybe this has been said already.

If you want increased endurance in an event, you should train in ways that simulate that event.

For example, if you want more endurance for fighting, don’t train to run 10 miles, because fighting takes way more energy than running does. You’ll increase the amount you can run, but you won’t have any more endurance in your fight.

Similarly, if someone could run 5 miles but wanted to run 10, they wouldn’t train by sprinting and jumping rope, because those don’t approximate distance running.

If you want more endurance for fighting, train by fighting/sparring or if you can’t, train buy jumping rope or doing Kettlebell snatches or something that approximates the energy usage that you find in fighting.

Not trying to tell you what to do, just trying to save you from wasting your time.[/QUOTE]

The Law of Specificty rules, quite correct.

[JGTevo]

You’ll increase the amount you can run, but you won’t have any more endurance in your fight.

That’s actually not entirely correct. If you go back through the threda, bakxierboxer posted a quote explaining that aerobic endurance contributes to anaerobic endurance as well.