Introduction
The starting point is that HEMA sparring (and drilling) is a form of conditioning in its own right. This has two implications:
- Impact on the ‘economics of conditioning’ - two hard drilling and sparring sessions a week (say) is equivalent to two hard conditioning sessions. They will take a toll and have to be factored into any broader conditioning schedule.
- Supplementary conditioning work is best directed to the adaptations which will benefit fencing performance, but which are not in and of themselves driven effectively by fencing practice.
Almost all individual engagements are over within a few seconds. That means that the primary energy system that fuels sparring is the phosphate or ‘alactic’ mechanism. However, in the intervals between engagements (and between rounds) it is the oxidative or ‘aerobic’ mechanism that is working to clear waste by-products and replenish the stores of substrates which are used as fuel for explosive flurries. The main job of the aerobic system is to drive this (partial) recovery, rather than to supply adenosine triphosphate directly (although it does do this, and since the muscles can store a couple of seconds worth, this can be important later in the fight).
The glycolytic or ‘lactic’ anaerobic mechanism which fuels maximal efforts longer than ten seconds or so almost never becomes dominant, except in very extended grapples or in very long and intense rounds where the lactate threshold is breached.
Power and rate of force development in an individual flurry is a function of strength and the ability to apply it quickly. The former is a function of the contractile properties of fast twitch muscle fibres, while the latter is a function of the effectiveness of the nervous system in activating them.
Strength and speed
All things being equal, improvement in strength will be the single biggest contributor to improved engagement speed and force. ‘All things being equal’ means that this is done without detriment to nervous system effectiveness (think of an Olympic weightlifter versus a bodybuilder) and without acquiring excessive mass which in extremis causes a loss of speed and, more significantly, a deterioration in endurance resulting from the increased weight of the limbs and the aerobic ‘cost’ of supplying the bigger fast twitch musculature (think of a heavyweight versus a flyweight boxer). In the absence of a sustained programme of synthetic hormone administration, the latter consideration can safely be ignored. The former is addressed in the training method.
Strength development also has an indirect effect on muscular endurance simply by making sword-swinging easier in relative terms. Simplistically - doubling shoulder and arm strength will effectively halve the perceived weight of the weapon.
Because increase in musculoskeletal strength can only be achieved by moving against a progressive increase in like-for-like resistance, it is not possible to drive this adaptation beyond a very basic level by drilling and sparring, and therefore an appropriate and progressive programme of strength training is probably the single most useful supplementary discipline for HEMA sparring and competition.
Although the details of programming will be trickier for a non-beginner and for an, ahem, older athlete, particularly given the other demands on the HEMA practitioner's energy, there is a general consensus (borne out by experience) that free weight (barbell) training based around a small number of fundamental compound exercises - notably barbell squat, overhead press or push press, weighted chin up or pull up, bench press and some form of deadlift - is likely to be the most efficient and effective in developing strength for general athletic performance, although there is certainly a learning curve. There is also no particular need to make specific accommodations for HEMA as such: basic strength training is general, not sport-specific, in character.
Strength development is best accomplished by lifting for multiple sets of relatively low numbers of repetitions (five or less), after adequate warm up, and with plenty of rest between efforts (around five minutes for the heavy, working sets). Among other things, this also means that the alactic-phosphate mechanism is the principal energy system being stressed.
What is less clear is whether there are significant benefits to training neuromuscular effectiveness (the ability to deliver force as quickly as possible) over and above what is trained in drilling and sparring. However, lifting weights as explosively as possible, especially in the lighter ‘warm up’ sets, may well drive useful adaptation (or at least prevent maladaptation), and some strength training programmes (such as ‘Westside’) make explicit and deliberate use of ‘dynamic’ lifting as a contributor to strength as well as broader athletic performance. On the other hand, given the need to economise on training effort, it may be that the benefits of introducing specific, additional ‘speed lifts’, such as the power clean and push jerk, would be outweighed by the costs in time and energy.
The programming of strength work (volume, frequency, loading method) will depend on the level of experience of the lifters, their age, and their other training priorities and demands.
Aerobic base and endurance
Potential aerobic adaptations are more complex:
- Cardiac output (stroke volume).
- Cardiac power (heart muscle strength and endurance).
- Lactate threshold
- Muscle endurance (oxidative capacity of local fast twitch fibres)
Of the four, cardiac output is likely to be least improved by drilling and sparring. Stroke volume is improved by increasing the capacity of the left heart ventricle (‘eccentric cardiac hypertrophy’). This adaptation is driven by maintaining a heart rate in the 130 to 150 beats per minute region steadily for an extended period of time, preferably an hour or more [Jamieson (2009)]. There are various ways to do this, the traditional one being the ‘long slow distance’ run used famously by boxers. This is probably not the safest choice (because of potential repetitive impact damage), but it does the trick.
Whether or not cardiac output is a limiting factor may be best indicated (and easiest measured) by resting heart rate [ibid]. Broadly, if resting heart rate is already comfortably below 60 bpm, low intensity steady state work is unlikely to be the most effective use of training time. If resting heart rate is well into the 60’s or higher, the performance returns on time spent improving aerobic capacity are likely to be significant, and very noticeable in sparring. Major improvement is achievable in a few weeks of LISS work, once or twice per week, without much if any adverse impact on other training (sustained higher volumes of this type of training are thought to be potentially detrimental both to strength and to speed).
Cardiac power is improvable by various forms of high intensity interval training (such as hill sprints). Lactate threshold is potentially pushed up by working at a level of ‘sustainable discomfort’ (in the absence of an accurate assessment of the anaerobic threshold heart rate) in blocks of several minutes. Both of these conditions are potentially simulated to a greater or lesser degree in drilling and sparring, and this needs to be borne in mind when planning any supplemental training. These methods may also interfere with progressive strength training in the absence of adequate recovery.
Finally, specific, fast twitch muscle endurance (basically, improving the oxidative uptake of the working muscle through such adaptations as increased mitochondrial density) is also likely to be driven in part by prolonged sword swinging. More generally, endurance is built effectively by resistance training in sets of relatively high repetitions (8 to 15 or so) with short rest intervals (forty seconds or less), inducing local muscular hypoxia but without excessively driving competing glycolytic adaptations. To prevent interference with other training, this kind of thing can be efficiently tagged onto the end of a strength training session. In HEMA fencing the key areas are the muscles around the shoulder joints and, to a lesser degree, the thighs.
Programming
The broad hierarchy of priorities that underpins any training programme is:
- Skill acquisition and development - getting to class (and solo practice).
- Strength
- Aerobic capacity (output)
- Aerobic power, lactate threshold and muscular endurance.
How these priorities are programmed for will depend on the level of development they already enjoy, the degree of overlap between them, and, for some, the need to peak for a competition. In general, moving down the hierarchy the adaptations become quicker to acquire (but often quicker to lose).
A relative (and relatively young) beginner to strength training will typically train two or three days per week using an appropriate and straightforward protocol. An older athlete, or one nearer the top of their personal strength curve will typically programme a lower volume of lifting, with a less frequent exercise frequency (squatting once or twice a week rather than three times, for example) and with a slower and more complex rate of progression. There may be exceptions to the rule about lifting less frequently where lighter/faster lifting is done on some days (e.g. Texas Method, Westside), but other uses of that training time also need to be considered.
The need for supplementary aerobic base work will need to be assessed and programmed appropriately.
An example of a general training format might be:
Saturday - Fencing, or high intensity interval training if fencing has to be missed
Sunday - Rest
Monday - Weight-training (squat, bench press, weighted chin ups. ancillary)
Tuesday - Aerobic base (LISS or threshold training, depending on assessed need)
Wednesday - Fencing, or high intensity interval training if fencing has to be missed
Thursday - Rest
Friday - Weight-training (overhead press, deadlifts, ancillary)
An individual with a more pressing need for aerobic base work (for example, if a couple of months out from a ‘serious’ competition) might reduce lifting to one day per week with a view to maintenance, to create space, at least for a few weeks. An individual who is struggling with recovery from this volume of work might add a rest day, dropping aerobic base work or a strength day depending on priorities, rather than reducing intensity. Someone with adequate conditioning from the two fencing sessions alone may prefer to divide weight-training over three days and drop the supplementary aerobic base day, at least for a time. Some level of periodisation across strength and aerobic base programming is likely to be necessary, at least for non-beginners, for example by varying volume, intensity and frequency of lifting in a systematic way, and by cycling lower and higher intensity aerobic work over time.
Chris Bentley, February 2015
Bibliography
Bruno A. and Viada K. So You Want to Run? Endurance Training for Strength Athletes (http://www.completehumanperformance.com/so-you-want-to-run-endurance-training-for-strength-athletes-part-1.html and http://www.completehumanperformance.com/so-you-want-to-run-part-2.html)
Burgener M. cited by Kubik B. Dinosaur Training: Serious Training for Older Lifters (http://dinosaurtraining.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/serious-training-for-older-lifters.html)
Jamieson J. (2009) Ultimate MMA Conditioning
Krahn B. and Thibaudeau C. (2010) Thibaudeau on Ramping (http://www.t-nation.com/testosterone-magazine-639)
Rippetoe M. (2013) Starting Strength, 3rd Edition
Rippetoe M. and Kilgore L. (2010) Practical Programming for Strength Training, 2nd Edition
Wendler J. (2012) 5/3/1: the Simplest and Most Effective Training System for Raw Strength
No comments:
Post a Comment