Main > Everything Else
Question for fitness types
AtomSmasher:
--- Quote from: shorthair on May 09, 2007, 01:33:26 am ---Okay, I goofed on the Mahler article part. As for MT, I wouldn't characterise it that way at all. According to MT, almost all people should eat some form of animal protein. What differentiates is the type and amount, as well as the types of fat they can consume, along with the types of carbs, though vegetable carbs are emphasised for all. Also, the types of vegetables people can eat depends. It doesn't sound like he's got it down.
--- End quote ---
My last reply was from my sister, who is a nutritionist with certificates and degrees in pretty much everything related to nutrition, including being certified in MT. She writes nutrition and exercise programs for a living, and I can be fairly confident she understands MT much better then you do. I'm sure you'll completely disagree with that since you just compared yourself to Einstein and seem to think your better at everything then everyone else. The funny thing is, she agrees with you that MT isn't a bogus diet, and yet you still want to argue with her.
AtomSmasher:
I sent Alywn your first response to what he said (so the reponse before the last one) and I just got an email back from him:
--- Quote ---I said "combat conditioning" sucks.
I didn't say "Bodyweight training" sucks.
They' aren't the same thing. And he isn't able to see that I guess. Oh well...
(incidentally - I think I said this before -- Mike Mahler is a kettlebell guy -- he hasn't done "combat conditioning" since 2001). That speaks volumes.
--- Quote ---That Furey is a marketing genius has nothing to do with CC - except insofar as he was able to bring the product to market. I at least gave technical qualifiers on why it's good. Cosgrove doesn't even give a vague alternative.
--- End quote ---
That made me laugh.
--- Quote ---But that's why he makes money at it. Hmmm..... Also, and Furey talks about this, why would being good in one thing mean it doesn't translate to other things?...except the wrestling - and martial arts and grappling - came before the internet marketing, etc...
These are serious questions.
--- End quote ---
That made me laugh too.
--- Quote ---Oop, except look what I, just looking around for a minute, found on Mahler's site:
http://www.mikemahler.com/articles/cosgrove1.html
Your body is a barbell
No dumbbells, no barbells, no problem
By Alwyn Cosgrove
In fact when you think about it, the only reason to ever use external load (i.e. weights) is because your bodyweight is not enough resistance.
--- End quote ---
Again he's confused bodyweight training with combat conditioning (which uses bodyweight) -- not the same thing.
Weight training is good. a ---smurf-poop--- weight training program sucks. And the fact that the second one uses the same equipment as the first does not in any way redeem it. Curves uses weights after all...
I sell a bodyweight training DVD. I've written several bodyweight training articles. Bodyweight is not the problem with combat conditioning....
For your information (but I'm sure you can't be bothered with this) combat conditioning isn't even a program. It's a book of 3 exercises and their variations - hindu push ups, hindu squats and back bridges. Progression? Do more. Increase load? Umm you can't unless you gain weight ...
--- Quote from: I let him know my response too --- I responded with,
I asked him if he could just quickly give me his thoughts on it, which is what he did. I'm sure he could go on and on about exactly why the book sucks,
--- End quote ---
Yes. I'm pretty boring like that.
--- Quote ---but the short version is just that it sucks. I do enjoy that fact that you think you know much more about exercising and nutrition then him, what are your qualifications on the subject again?
--- End quote ---
the thing that all these guys who talk ---Cleveland steamer--- on the internet NEVER seem to get -- Rach and I make money from training people. I get paid for writing programs, and writing articles etc about training. We get paid to get people in shape fast. We use the fastest methods we know of. We don't give a ---Cleveland steamer--- what those methods are -- if combat conditioning worked better than what we do -- then that's what we'd use - because it would make us more money right?. We don't care what we use -- we use the best methods that we've found.
Combat conditioning didn't make the cut.
What's funny though is that I watched the DVD today about marketing (from Matt Furey - the guy who came up with Combat conditioning - that Mike Mahler wrote about) -- he uses his combat conditioning as an example -- and talks about how it is about 3 pages of intro and then just a bunch of exercises...one page is a photo of the exercise, the facing page is 'how to' do the exercise and that it wasn't that good - he didn't think that it would sell -- but people bought it because of his marketing skills and ability to write sales copy!
(he also speaks about his first book - the martial art of wrestling -- that didn't sell AT ALL -- until he repackaged it as an 'underground special report' -- I told you he was a genius at marketing).
--- End quote ---
Does that clear anything up for you? Even the creator of CC admits in his marketing video that he didn't think CC was good enough to sell.
shorthair:
You mistake the Einstein thing, and then fixated on it. Ego. I'm not saying I know more than he does. I know I don't have the same amount of experience and such. Never said I did. As well with your sister. What I did say is CC is outstanding (and that I think he's wrong - and that he is totally wrong about the body-weight exercises vs CC thing), as well as MT not being what your sister made it out to be. I did forget to mention that there isn't a standard with MT. After reading the original book, I went online and looked up stuff about it. I found all kinds of groups and stuff using the name, but using altered methodologies - like if they were packaging it for a particular audience.
Which brings me to the the marketing thing: people find an audience and then find the best way to market it to them. This is because people are fickle. It doesn't necessarily at all measure the effectiveness of the product, just that they were able to get people to buy it. And, no, Furey didn't say the exericse wasn't that good, but that the layout of that page wasn't good. That's the way your bro said it, anyway. Although, I have to mention, he writes much more impressively in an article where he might have a lot more time to think about the content and proof read it an all.
Back on CC and training: actually, there are ways to increase resistance without using weights. (I'll tell ya if you wanna know.) And speed is often not a decent (I know he didn't say it was the only) criterion to base a training regimen on - but it would be for his audience. I still say these are the best all-around exercises, but regardless notice he doesn't use just a couple-few, let alone one. He uses several. And, he's right, CC isn't a program. We're not talking about programs, here. DUH.
And, no, that Mahler doesn't do conditioning anymore say anything, necessarily. That he doesn't lift anymore, and for years say anything? Not necessarily, cos he could just be obsessed with kettlebells. He still links the CC article. He wouldn't if he thought of them even closely to what your bro does. No, the reason Mahler does mostly kettlebells (not only, cos he does do lighter, in-between conditioning, as well as mentions it in his newsletter workouts and stuff) is cos he thinks they're the most effective tool for his purposes. They're the only gear of that kind I recommend. But his level of training is so far above most people that it isn't even funny. He trains smart, but he trains intensely.
Bottom line: I know what I do works. It'll work for anybody, with less work than anything else, and at least as comprehensively as anything else. All my own experience and those I've trained confirm this. If I find something better, I'll - as your bro says - use that instead. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I haven't found it. I haven't seen it in the little I've seen of his. But he and I are different: he has a goal, or goals, in mind. I have aspirations to be a certain way. He is gain-oriented. I'm process-oriented.
Buddabing:
--- Quote from: shorthair on May 08, 2007, 05:17:11 pm --- Do you have rampant sexual energy?
--- End quote ---
As a married man, I do not have sex.
jbox:
--- Quote from: shorthair on May 09, 2007, 04:50:37 am ---as well as MT not being what your sister made it out to be. I did forget to mention that there isn't a standard with MT. After reading the original book, I went online and looked up stuff about it. I found all kinds of groups and stuff using the name, but using altered methodologies - like if they were packaging it for a particular audience.
--- End quote ---
So people can all have different takes on what it means, except her? Just want to double check the logic here... :applaud:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version