Who is currently doing Naked Warrior and what do you think?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

305pelusa

Level 6 Valued Member
I don't agree that the squat is a "natural" movement.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Kozushi. To me, it's about the most basic movement pattern. We simply avoid it because of the epidemic of sitting.
 
Last edited:

pet'

Level 8 Valued Member
Hello,

IMO, squatting is "natural" : look at a baby, look at populations in Africa.

Globally, we avoid squatting because we lost the ability to do it, especially related to the flexbility and mobility. Human body remains a "monkey". Monkeys squat. Related to that, I train in every workout the basic functional patterns: The Seven Basic Human Movements

Kind regards,

Pet'
 

Steve Freides

Staff
Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
There was a good bit about squatting and deadlifting, and loading and not, at the FMS one time when I attended.

The gist of it was that, if you watch a baby, they do squat and beautifully, but if you watch them try to pick up something from a squat position, unless it's very light, they will let their hips rise and then deadlift it. If you buy into the line of thinking that what little children do is "natural" - I am neutral on this point - then you have your answer: squat but don't load it heavily, but load up your deadlift.

-S-
 

Kozushi

Level 7 Valued Member
Yes, I completely agree that deadlifting is 100% natural. We have hands to pick stuff up. Stuff is on the ground. We deadlift to pick it up. We've been at this for millions of years and our bodies are made for it. We do not squat to pick things up. We squat to crouch down when it's more convenient to do that than to sit on the ground. We are made to pick up lots of stuff repeatedly, like a deadlifting exercise, but squatting up and down, NO! That's silly movement! Actually, I don't think there was much one could choose to squat with before the barbell was invented. Large rocks and similar are not good for squatting with - sitting upon, yes, but holding and squatting for no reason - no.

This is why it's hard as heck to do deep one legged squats - we aren't made for them. We can easily get down about half way, which is all we need for hiking, running, jumping and walking, but getting lower we feel that something is quite amiss and it takes special training to do. This is also why they're great exercise! They force the body to do harder stuff than is natural.

It's like with pushups - we have the ability to pick our upper bodies off the ground by pushing down with our arms, but with one arm - no - we're not really made for that. This is why it's such awesome and superhuman exercise to do it.

I'd think that the more natural an exercise is, the less valid it is for building superhuman strength.

Think about walking - putting 100kg (in my case) on my right leg, then left, then repeated tens of thousands of times. WOW! What pressing and endurance power!!! Every fat, weak, blob can do this!

That is something natural our bodies are made for, that's why.

Now, take a one arm handstand pushup. This is a ridiculous, useless movement that we have no need for in nature. This is why if you train for and can do it you're a jacked "mutha"! :)

Computers aren't natural, which is why they're useful. Cars aren't natural, but they're useful. Kettlebells are ridiculously unnatural things, which is why they're useful. :)

We make natural movements like walking and deadlifting unnatural, and therefore useful for developing unnaturally great amounts of strength and endurance by loading our bodies with unnaturally heavy weights. This is taking a natural movement, which is not going to challenge our strength systems, and making it unnatural by making it ridiculously and unnaturally heavy.

Natural is bad.
 

305pelusa

Level 6 Valued Member
Computers aren't natural, which is why they're useful. Cars aren't natural, but they're useful. Kettlebells are ridiculously unnatural things, which is why they're useful. :)
Refined sugars aren't natural, and they're bad for you. Cocaine isn't natural (completely chemically designed), and it's far from good for you. Bosu balls and shakeweight are ridiculously unnatural things, and they're totally useless.
 

Oscar

Level 6 Valued Member
Even though I'm not sure I agree with all of @Kozushi 's points, they definitively call my attention since I never thought of those movements that way.

About the squat, I agree that a loaded squat doesn't seem to be something that replicates human natural life. That is probably why it develops such thick quads which don't look natural (and don't happen to natural disciplines athletes such as sprinters, runners, hikers etc).

@Steve Freides's approach sounds right to me. If I had to train a human for "natural" life, I'd go with something like this:

Bodyweight exercises:
- run
- walk
- squat (maybe up to light- medium loads)
- climb (trees, rock)

Loaded:
- deadlifts
- loaded carries, with hands or on shoulders
- power clean odd objects up to shoulder carry, such as sandbags, logs, etc.

If the guy is going to be a warrior, which sounds "natural" to me, I would add pushups and/or presses.

Makes sense?
 

Kozushi

Level 7 Valued Member
Half squats are a natural part of walking uphill. Full all the way down squats are just for sitting down.

We don't need to train for daily life though because daily life provides exactly the right amount of training for itself.

It's when we try to do things beyond daily "natural" life that we need strange training methods like kettlebells, barbells, 100lbs Indian clubs and so forth, or handstand pushups and stuff.

I think when someone tries to sell a training method as "more natural" it's just not worth my notice, since I'm already pretty "natural" as I am.

Yes, natural exercises like walking and running, and lifting things up are very healthy and keep everything working well. Mostly anyone who isn't a complete sendentary sloth can pick up a 30lbs weight and walk with it across the room, or walk for an hour, or sprint for a few minutes. These things are all natural, what we are made for, and not worth our time as far as getting stronger is concerned. To get stronger we need to go beyond what is natural - so pick up a 100lbs weight and walk with it across the field, walk across your whole city for 5 hours with a heavy backpack on, run for an hour. These kinds of activities are beyond natural life and they train us to be super-natural I guess, hahaha.

Natural exercise is very healthy and good too, but it isn't going to make us "special" compared with others.
 

Kozushi

Level 7 Valued Member
Refined sugars aren't natural, and they're bad for you. Cocaine isn't natural (completely chemically designed), and it's far from good for you. Bosu balls and shakeweight are ridiculously unnatural things, and they're totally useless.
:)

But there is more to my argument than that little bit of hyperbole, hahaha! :)
 

Oscar

Level 6 Valued Member
I think when someone tries to sell a training method as "more natural" it's just not worth my notice, since I'm already pretty "natural" as I am
This is certainly not my case. My capacity of walking, hiking, running, climbing and lifting as well as my mobility are way below what I would consider natural or acceptable. This is why I'm try to train them altogether by S&S
 

Kozushi

Level 7 Valued Member
This is certainly not my case. My capacity of walking, hiking, running, climbing and lifting as well as my mobility are way below what I would consider natural or acceptable. This is why I'm try to train them altogether by S&S
Does S&S strike you as being "natural" body movements though? I don't think it's being promoted as "natural". But good point about that - many North Americans today are very weak from sitting all the time. Just getting people up to a natural level of fitness even would be good enough.

I could already hike, do pushups, chinups and all that stuff but S&S made me insanely stronger. And it really takes so little time, and it's fun too - not grueling labour.
 

305pelusa

Level 6 Valued Member
:)

But there is more to my argument than that little bit of hyperbole, hahaha! :)
My point is merely that computers, cars and KBs aren't useful because they're natural or not, whatever natural even means. They're useful because they enact algorithms faster than humans, convert energy to speed and load the body effectively, in that order.

Similarly, Squats and Pushups don't build a lot of muscle because they're natural or not. It's because they are full ROM exercises, that requires a very large amount of muscles to be done.

Instead of trying to arbitrarily categorize movements as (un)natural to see if they are useful (which doesn't even work since many unnatural things aren't useful anyways as you could see!), I recommend you use the same test Dan John, Pavel, and hundreds of coaches use. Full ROM, basic, compound exercises is your ticket to muscle.
 

Kozushi

Level 7 Valued Member
My point is merely that computers, cars and KBs aren't useful because they're natural or not, whatever natural even means. They're useful because they enact algorithms faster than humans, convert energy to speed and load the body effectively, in that order.

Similarly, Squats and Pushups don't build a lot of muscle because they're natural or not. It's because they are full ROM exercises, that requires a very large amount of muscles to be done.

Instead of trying to arbitrarily categorize movements as (un)natural to see if they are useful (which doesn't even work since many unnatural things aren't useful anyways as you could see!), I recommend you use the same test Dan John, Pavel, and hundreds of coaches use. Full ROM, basic, compound exercises is your ticket to muscle.
:)

Yes, I guess it's full range of motion plus how much weight we load onto it. Natural/unnatural is all moot since anything we do is natural because we're natural creatures.

I guess I'm addressing the full range of motion aspect with the NW exercises to complement the S&S ones. I still find it funny that the two exercises where I'm holding nothing in my hands are the "heavy" exercises whereas the ones where I have the kettlebell in my hand are the lighter ones! Paradox!
 

Antti

Level 9 Valued Member
I think the push a pretty typical movement with physical labour, like in construction, for example. It's definitely useful to train it for real life applications. I do understand, however, that some may never need it, but that applies to all exercise.

Even if the push is useful, I'd still say that most of the pushing in real life is done by the legs. The arms are more under isometric tension. And the push is nearly always an overhead press, where the alignment of the upper body changes depending on the needed angle.
 

Antti

Level 9 Valued Member
I have also found squats very useful when working. I go down to a squat position, use something to get an object on my shoulder, and then get up and move it.
 

pet'

Level 8 Valued Member
Hello,

I think that some practices such as "MovNat" can be useful because they match pretty well functional patterns and everyday life moves. Using specific training methods to improve some capacities (lifting even more, running faster and longer, etc...) is interesting if you want to be "above the average" guy.

To a certain extent, I believe that "complex" moves, such as squats (and variations), push ups (and variations), etc... also involve lots of coordination. This is because they are wonderful compounds which inlvove the whole body. IMO, we can not be "strong" if we have a poor coordination and poor mobility / flexibility.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 

Kozushi

Level 7 Valued Member
Interesting. I guess it makes sense that with a squat you can get something on your shoulder and then get back up again and walk etc.
 

wespom9

Level 6 Valued Member
Certified Instructor
There was a good bit about squatting and deadlifting, and loading and not, at the FMS one time when I attended.

The gist of it was that, if you watch a baby, they do squat and beautifully, but if you watch them try to pick up something from a squat position, unless it's very light, they will let their hips rise and then deadlift it. If you buy into the line of thinking that what little children do is "natural" - I am neutral on this point - then you have your answer: squat but don't load it heavily, but load up your deadlift.

-S-
Totally agree, and I would go as far to say that I am basically on the side of the fence that agrees with the statement that kids move "naturally". Much more common to pick something up that to repeatedly get up and down with a heavy load.

Something that I find very fascinating with this conversation is that many of the movements we as a group are qualifying as the best moves for hypertrophy are the squat and push, which are the same moves we say are atypical for humans to do. Funny that Dan John calls these moves (in addition to the pull, or pull up) as the "sex drive" moves. The "thrive" moves as he says - the loaded carry and the deadlift - seem more the "real life moves" that are hugely important for athletic performance, or even life performance, yet somehow don't deliver the same hypertrophy results.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Top Bottom