Training less for better results

[Chris McKinley]

Matthew,

I would gladly welcome a break from the bizarre and childish personal nonsense to actually discuss the topic. Your question, though simple itself, requires some exploring to answer. To begin with, there really isn't such thing as an "average" person in the street in the context of this question, given the enormous difference between and common occurrence of a young, fit, athletic, large male and an elder, sedentary, petite female. For the sake of discussion, I'll start by giving my answers as they relate more to the former. I'll also assume that the primary training objective is for such person to be able to reasonably expect to survive a non-military and non-professional physical assault that can range up to a life-threatening nature. I say reasonably because there are never any guarantees for anybody no matter what.

RE: "...for the "average" person in the street, could you give an idea of what frequency training, for how long and covering what sort of material might reasonably equip them with a "decent" level of skills to be prepared to handle sudden and unexpected violence?". Your own question speaks to the real answer, which is that the situation is always a balancing act between a small number of relevant and sometimes competing factors in a kind of rock, paper, scissors arrangement. IOW, the length of training required goes down as the frequency, the realism of content, and the intensity of training goes up and vice versa, and such is true for each factor in relation to the rest.

Still, in order to answer your question in any meaningful way, we have to start somewhere. While it's impossible and ultimately meaningless to predict precise figures for any of this as it relates to any particular individual, it is possible to discuss acceptable ranges as observed in previous trainees under similar circumstances. Let's start with content and I'll cover the other factors in subsequent posts. The content for this project has to be simple, realistic, flexible and robust. Let's look at what each of those criteria mean:

Simple - the actual combatives employed must be stand-alone tactics that can be mixed and matched according to need. This allows for the defender to apply his skills regardless of the unique tactics and opportunities that arise in every unique assault. Specific combinations or multi-move techniques are poor investments in comparison in terms of their likelihood of applicability as taught.

Realistic - the specific combatives taught must be of a nature as to reflect what actually occurs, or at least what is likely to occur, in a real violent assault. There are as many opinions as people practicing them, so the criterion is necessarily subjective. However, playing the percentages is far easier than making precise comparisons. For instance, a palm smash to the face is a far more realistic tactic under most circumstances than the plucking hand of Taijiquan's Single Whip. As a combat tactic, the latter (as performed in the form) is nearly absurd while the former is ubiquitous for good reason.

Flexible - the tactical content must be effective against as wide as possible a range of tactics used by the attacker(s) for the simple reason that you will never know what the bad guy is coming with until you're actually engaged with him. As a counter-example, it is stereotypically common, if often erroneous, to see Karate tactics demonstrated against only Karate-style attacks, or CMA applications demos depicting that CMA art's response to CMA-style attacks. Beside being unrealistically limited, such demos are also unfortunately limited to types of attacks that almost never occur in the reality of actual violent assaults. The tactics taught must be capable of functioning adequately against any type of attacker, especially given that, by percentage, most violent criminals exhibit no specific style whatsoever in their attacks.

Robust - the content must have a functional threshold that is as far below "ideal" as possible. IOW, anything can work in a demo where the circumstances for using it are artificially perfect and artificially tailor-made for just that response. In reality, there is almost never a perfect time to apply any given tactic, and it must often be superimposed by force in a given moment. That's just the nature of fighting. Nobody, especially someone intent on harming or killing you by surprise, is going to make it easy for you to use your material on them. I've often driven this point home by telling my students that if you can't use it effectively with compromised or collapsed structure, with a limited range of mobility, while sick, buzzed and full from a large meal against an attacker who has already struck you first, then you can't use it realistically.

Thankfully, no martial arts style, no system of combatives, no sport combat system....no codified system of whatever kind, has a monopoly on content that fits these criteria. In fact, at least some measure of content that fits these criteria can be found in nearly every style and system. It's a matter of identifying and extracting it for the purposes of this training project.

[johnwang]

I did train 6 hours a day, 6 days a week and continue for 3 months twice in my life when I was young. Since I had to walk 4 miles each way to the training place (I didn't have money to pay the bus fare), it took me more than 8 hours daily. I did realize that my body was in the best shape in my entire life.

My friend used to joke about, "In US, people asked you how many times that you train weekly. In Taiwan, people asked you how many times that you train daily." There is a big difference in the mindset. In US, people treat training as hard work. In Taiwan, people treat training as for fun.

[Chris Fleming]

"actually discuss the topic."

mwah ha ha ha... McKinley at his finest. Yeah, your posts like that long one above are DEFINITELY on topic. Dude, you actually directed me to look at your post count and then call me childish. Seriously. It surprises me that someone who regularly engages in "life or death combat" situations and "real violence" posts so much on this board and is so ready and willing to argue with any and all comers on the interwebs. Or...maybe you're just looking for people to kiss your ass. From my experience, people who are expert aren't the ones looking for praise on internet forums.

[Chris McKinley]

Matthew,

Next let's look at the other side of the coin from material content.....namely, how that content is trained. For our purposes, the training needs to be at the higher end of the subjective scale of intensity simply because the environment in which it will be used will be of the highest intensity. Training regimens which, by percentage of training time, employ lots of solo form, little to no full-contact exchange, lots of cooperative application of tactics, or teach strings of tactics are not really appropriate to the training objectives we're considering. However realistic the content, that content must then be trained and ultimately practiced within an environment as close to the native context as safely possible. For what we're talking about, this means bringing up the training to include an environment which resembles the circumstances and intensity of a real surprise physical assault. This often includes but is not limited to at least some use of scenario training. This is a necessity if the skills obtained are to be functionally contextualized and therefore accessible in a real assault.

I've written precisely and extensively on these topics on this forum over the years, so real specifics are going to require a search of my previous posts. Generally speaking, there is room for performance mechanics training, but it should be brought up to a functional level then immediately exposed to the contextualization process. Switching back and forth between improving mechanics and contextualizing the skill is an ongoing process that rapidly accelerates both learning and retention of the material.

While high intensity is part and parcel of realistic combat training, it's important to keep as much machismo out of the training as possible. One can train with both intelligence and maximum ferocity without engaging in ego-driven machismo, and in fact to reach maximum functional ability, such is absolutely required. The nature and intensity levels of the training required can fairly quickly become challenging to otherwise untrained individuals with no prior combative experience. Injury is always a risk, no matter how safely the training is structured, and great care must be taken to minimize it. Put simply, occasional bumps, bruises, strains, scrapes, and small cuts are an unavoidable part of the training. As a rule of thumb, if one's current training doesn't include these minor injuries on at least an occasional basis, there is a good likelihood that the training is unrealistic to the purpose.

[Patrick]

I train a lot, because I love it and without training life wouldn´t be the same.

[Chris McKinley]

Matthew,

Now let's look at training frequency. I'll mention that frequency and duration are in a loosely anti-proportional relationship. IOW, as frequency of training goes up, the duration of each session goes down, or at least can do so in a productive way. Further, it is more productive to engage in frequent, shorter training sessions than infrequent longer ones. Also, both factors are in a balancing relationship with training intensity. Of course, that might beg the question, "If that's true, then why not engage in frequent, longer sessions and get the best of both worlds?" You can do so, to an extent of course. If you're currently training 30 minutes once a week, then switching to a regimen in which you are training daily for 2 hours will definitely result in dramatic improvements. However, there is a point of diminishing returns for both factors, and eventually they become anti-proportional. Let's look at each as it applies to our project.

Training frequency - Due to the primacy and recency effects from learning theory and what we know of the positive effects of sleep on learning and retention, generally speaking, more is better...up to a point. Twice a week is a lot better than once a month. However, the more frequent the training, the less that improvement applies. For example, training everyday isn't necessarily better than training five days a week, or even than training every other day. Depending upon the intensity of each individual training session, training every day can even result in overtraining, especially if the intensity is of the caliber to produce the kind of skills we're discussing for this project. Put simply, what we're after is optimal training frequency, not maximal frequency.

Personally, IME, I've found that the minimal successful frequency for most trainees for short-term production of functional combat skills for a potentially life-threatening context is between 1 and 2 training sessions per week. However, perhaps strangely and notably, I've also found that the upper limit of training frequency for most trainees is between 4 and 5 sessions per week. Any more than this and most people suffer degradation of the rate of learning and improvement. Some of this may be due to neurophysiological factors in learning, but much of it is attributable to the effects of overtraining. For clarity, the sessions referenced are generally between 1 and 3 hours each and the intensity is in the highest 25% of the spectrum.

Training duration - as I mentioned previously, the primacy and recency effects from learning theory favor multiple shorter sessions. This has to do with the way the brain contextualizes new information, creates associations, and transfers learned information from short-term to long-term memory. Just as with frequency, another limiting factor to the duration of each training session is the intensity of each individual session. Training for 8 hours, for example, guarantees that one is not training at high intensity for the entire session. One can train at high intensity or one can train for long duration...one cannot maintain both.

Due to loss of stored glycogen, water, and electrolytes, high-intensity sessions tend to increase the risk of injury, fatigue and illness the longer they last. IME, training sessions are optimal in a 1 to 3 hour range. Desired intensity levels can be maintained for this period, especially if they are accompanied by 5-minute breaks every half hour for electrolytes and simple carbohydrates, and breaks for water even more frequently.

[Chris McKinley]

Matthew,

Finally, to arrive at a meaningful answer to the final part of your question, let's talk about how long all of this might take to produce a functional level of ability. Hopefully you've seen how exactly none of this is precise and perfectly formulaically quantifiable, even for a given individual, nevermind for a total population. All of the answers that can be provided are, therefore, at least partially subjective and malleable. Still, there are trends and patterns. For instance, I've found that with highly motivated, young, fit, athletic males who quickly adapt to the highest intensity levels and maintain them without injury, who train between 2 and 4 times a week with sessions lasting between 1 to 3 hours, the skills in question can be realistically obtained in a matter of weeks to months rather than years. I've seen anywhere from 3 weeks to 6 months as a lower threshold. Keep in mind, these figures are for otherwise untrained individuals with no prior combat training. Those numbers can change, even dramatically, for those with varying degrees of prior experience and training.

Now, taking a step back from the discussion, it's obvious that it becomes meaningfully impossible to wrap everything up in a nice tidy package and make a statement like, "It takes 6 months to learn to fight", or something similar. Are we then saying that even another month of that training wouldn't/couldn't have a noticeable positive improvement on the trainee's capabilities? Or, going another direction, are we saying that the said trainee is now capable of successfully fighting anybody after that 6 month period? Or, yet another direction, are we saying that if we made small upward tweaks to training intensity, frequency, or the realism of training or content, that it isn't possible that we would be able to eek out a little more performance improvement? The answer is an obvious "No" to all three questions.

All we can realistically do is look at trends, patterns and percentages. Your mileage will most certainly vary.

[wayne hansen]

For instance, a palm smash to the face is a far more realistic tactic under most circumstances than the plucking hand of Taijiquan's Single Whip. As a combat tactic, the latter (as performed in the form) is nearly absurd while the former is ubiquitous for good reason.For instance, a palm smash to the face is a far more realistic tactic under most circumstances than the plucking hand of Taijiquan's Single Whip. As a combat tactic, the latter (as performed in the form) is nearly absurd while the former is ubiquitous for good reason.For instance, a palm smash to the face is a far more realistic tactic under most circumstances than the plucking hand of Taijiquan's Single Whip. As a combat tactic, the latter (as performed in the form) is nearly absurd while the former is ubiquitous for good reason.

there is something wrong with anyone who would think of using sw like this.

[Chris McKinley]

Sure, wayne...of course that's true. I used that example because it's so obvious and absurd, which is why I took care to mention using it the way it's done in the form. I simply picked examples that unambiguously illustrate the comparison.

[Chris McKinley]

Sure, wayne...of course that's true. I used that example because it's so obvious and absurd, which is why I took care to mention using it the way it's done in the form. I simply picked examples that unambiguously illustrate the comparison.

[mrtoes]

Hi Chris

Wow! I really appreciate the thought and time taken to write such an awesome and comprehensive reply. I've saved it in it's entirety for future reference. From what you describe we can get functional skill quite quickly and without a ludicrous frequency or duration of training, as long as you train the skills that are most appropriate, close to the context that they will be used, and with an intensity that is as close as possible whilst maintaining a reasonable degree of safety. My background is as a mainly hsing i practitioner who is mainly interested in the five fists, who trains mainly for heath and happiness (being honest here), but is interested in being at least realistically aware of the combat effectiveness of the skills that I'm training. Part the reason I train the elements so much is I find that the skills acquired so much easier to apply than much of what is in the longer forms, which makes it a lot more real to me and thus more enjoyable. I don't train a fraction as hard and as long as my teacher, but I'm always trying to think about why I'm doing what I'm doing so that training time is as applicable as possible towards the qualities I want to develop (some of which are martial, some are not)

Besides the specifics of training (which as you say you've covered in depth before), what part does solo training play in this? Partner training is always better of course, but when you describe training "between 2 and 4 times a week with sessions lasting between 1 to 3 hours", is this time that the student has with you, or is this mainly homework (strength training, pad striking etc?) with one to one training once or twice a week to correct and contextualise skills?

Thanks,

Matthew.

[Chris McKinley]

Matthew,

Glad to have helped.

RE: "From what you describe we can get functional skill quite quickly and without a ludicrous frequency or duration of training, as long as you train the skills that are most appropriate, close to the context that they will be used, and with an intensity that is as close as possible whilst maintaining a reasonable degree of safety.". Yes, that's definitely true. To be clear, it's not that training beyond that amount is somehow not useful or whathaveyou, it's just that much of the common wisdom that's bandied about, especially in the IMA, that it takes many years to be able to actually fight effectively with the material is just flat wrong. Nothing at all wrong with continuing on your studies past that initial period, of course.

RE: "...what part does solo training play in this?". Well, not much, frankly. For the specific training objectives we've been discussing, solo training will include some fairly basic mechanics work, but that can be done in context of the regular training session since it doesn't realistically take that much time. Otherwise, the rest of what could be called solo training would be taken up by fitness training, which the student always does on their own time. By far, most of the training time in the training sessions I've been referring to is partner work in various forms.

[Andy_S]

Interesting thread.

What are your training components? For me, they are essentially:
Body strength (weights and bodyweight in the gym)
Stamina (running on the machine, and now the weather is better, cycling on the roads)
MA training (ie Taiji in the school, or form training in the park)
I work flexiblity into all the above, rather than as separate components.

If, 100 years ago, one had been a full time pro - say a soldier, escort or bodyguard - you would also have had to have practiced practiced tactics, communications and weaponry (maintenance as well as useage). That could easily take up your working day

I TRY to do a bit of two of the three every day, but generally it ends up as working out three-four times a week.

[RobP2]

At my height of pracitcing CIMA it wouldn't be uncommon to do 3 hours plus a day solo, given all the forms, 45 min+ standing post etc, etc.

I feel I get more out of doing less these days. Solo training is to maintain / improve movement, strength and general health / fitness. I can manage that in an hour at most a day (floor work, running, body weight exercises, posture/breathing work). Everything else needs partners, which is done in teaching/class time or with friends.

[Aged Tiger]

Wilson told me (now that I am 38) you can get the same results as a younger guy by training less.

As an older competitive athlete, I find that I need to train less. Too many hard training days in a row depletes the tank - meaning sloppy technique and injuries from being exhausted. I really need the recovery time to get the most out of my training.

-pete

You hit the nail on the head. As we get older, we need more recovery time. Pride needs to be left at the door.