Kettlebell A+A Swings / Snatches and Vo2max Question

[ajaan]

Hi,

There is a friend who is in his mid sixties. Very fit, lean, and strong. He's trained with numerous SFGs, and been lifting a long while. He is currently following a long-term plan designed by one SFG and he trains every single session one-on-one with another SFG to make sure his form and progress is good.

Current plan is PTTP (he's one of the few who does the old fashioned barbell side press, rather than another press) twice a week, with Simple and Sinister twice a week. And he does 60-70% HRmax nasal breathing aerobic on other days. He also does non-strenuous mobility and stability exercises.

He's making great progress on the program (no 'variety' syndrome) and enjoys it.

S&S is done 1H A+A style letting the breathing return to normal.

Now, the thing is, he wants to make sure his Vo2 max is good for his age, because his primary focus is healthy ageing and longevity, and V02 max capacity is a marker for healthy ageing.

So, the question is: will 1H A+A swings help with Vo2 max? I understand that snatches are superior (correct?) for Vo2max. But is there enough work in the 1H swing?

I'm guessing any person in their mid sixties who reaches 'simple' and is heading for 'sinister' is going to have a higher Vo2max than the average person in their sixties in today's society. Would this be right?

@aciampa
@Pavel Macek
@Harald Motz

Perhaps you all might have some thoughts given your interest and practice of S&S and A+A (and any others who want to jump in with thoughts).

Thanks

 

[Al Ciampa]

I would suggest to your friend that he reconsider exactly what VO2max is a measurement of (not in theory, but in practice).

 

[ajaan]

I would suggest to your friend that he reconsider exactly what VO2max is a measurement of (not in theory, but in practice).

Could you elaborate?

I think he's read some recent books by some Australian exercise physiologists (Unplugged by Dr Andy Galpin). And wanted to get lab tested for Vo2max.

Are you indicating that Vo2 max isn't important or that it's misunderstood?

 

[North Coast Miller]

Is it not a basic indicator of mitochondrial density and health?

End of day I probably wouldn't be terribly concerned with tha absolute value but it might come in handy as an indicator of health maintenance as one ages.

 

[Riley O'Neill]

He is probably fitter than the majority of people who are 20 years younger than him and for his age group is well within the top 1% of healthy people.

 

[Robert Noftz]

I have never had myself tested in a lab for any measure of fitness. In regards to my personal experience, I believe using the alactic and aerobic approach has been very beneficial for me.
I do swings with maximal explosiveness and then I walk in between sets. I walk around in the apartment and use rubber bands from Iron Mind to work the muscles that extend my fingers. I find that doing this allows me to keep my breath rate at the level approximating a brisk jog for the majority of the time. After that I do get ups using the same approach, but that is not absolutely essential. Another exercise could be done.
I also like this approach because it is something I can do with greater frequency. I have done higher intensity sessions of exercise in the past that are more like HIIT but to be honest I don't like them very much and try to avoid them. In the past when I felt that I had to push myself hard it seemed stressful both to my body and mind. It adds a stress to my life that doesn't seem beneficial in the long run. Perhaps and occasional session like that can be useful, but not for every day training.
Because of the way it keeps my breath rate up it does seem like a very good aerobic exercise as well as being good for overall body strength. By the way, I'm 49, and I much prefer this to long distance running. It seems easier on my joints and it is definitely better for overall muscle development. I believe it has more carry over benefits to daily life.

 

[Pavel Macek]

@ajaan I would personally keep doing what he is doing, add some walks in the nature and hikes, all good.

 

[ali]

You can do a beep test. Bit like IQ testing in that the test measures your ability to do IQ tests, beep tests measure your ability to do beep tests. It may provide a testing guide without being a lab rat, as, some argue anyway, it is reasonably accurate for vo2 Max, and others argue otherwise! I'm 53, my last beep test had me above the highest range on a diet of S&S. Then there are vo2 Max boosting protocols by Kenneth Jay. In your 60s and got to simple, you will have a good vo2 Max for sure. A very simple thing is to do a beep test and score as a guide. It is a guide.....something like this:
Beep Test VO2max Calculator

 

[jef]

[...]
Very fit, lean, and strong. He's trained with numerous SFGs, and been lifting a long while. He is currently following a long-term plan designed by one SFG and he trains every single session one-on-one with another SFG to make sure his form and progress is good.

Current plan is PTTP (he's one of the few who does the old fashioned barbell side press, rather than another press) twice a week, with Simple and Sinister twice a week. And he does 60-70% HRmax nasal breathing aerobic on other days. He also does non-strenuous mobility and stability exercises.

He's making great progress on the program (no 'variety' syndrome) and enjoys it.
[...]

So, basically, he is a senior who is fit, lean, strong, humble enough to have his form checked regularly, follows the program, enjoys it, and the program delivers.
Sounds very good to me.

V02 max capacity is a marker for healthy ageing.

A lot of markers are meaningful in population, not in individuals. Even so, I don't think that training specifically to improve a marker is a good idea (correlation, causation, etc).

 

[Al Ciampa]

Could you elaborate?

I think he's read some recent books by some Australian exercise physiologists (Unplugged by Dr Andy Galpin). And wanted to get lab tested for Vo2max.

Are you indicating that Vo2 max isn't important or that it's misunderstood?

You already received answers to my point. It would just be another number that might be anything but indicative in your individual. If he needs numbers in his life, have at it. If not, why bother?

Does he run? Have him run a fast mile. Use this as a baseline. Retest whenever he feels the need for more numbers.

Being capable is a far better metric of fitness than what labs can produce. Is his resting HR low, for him? Does he breathe well? Etc.

 

[mark reinke]

Could you elaborate?

I think he's read some recent books by some Australian exercise physiologists (Unplugged by Dr Andy Galpin). And wanted to get lab tested for Vo2max.

Are you indicating that Vo2 max isn't important or that it's misunderstood?

VO2 max is largely a genetically determined characteristic.

It can be improved, but not as much as one might imagine (some estimates say 10-15%). With your guy here, if he's already reasonably "fit", and has been active for some time, it's highly unlikely that he'd see much change in that number anyway.

The key to getting more performance in things like S& S as a "test" is to improve at what percentage of the VO2 max one can work at without accumulating the metabolic waste products that shut down muscle contraction. This point is known as the "onset of blood lactate accumulation" (OBLA)

This, surprisingly (or not), can be improved by what he's already doing.

If he needs some numbers, there are so many more important things to look at for aging well: overall strength and muscle mass are emerging as more important measures of resistance to all cause mortality.

follow these for a nice nerd safari:

Is strength training associated with mortality benefits? A 15year cohort study of US older adults. - PubMed - NCBI
Association between muscular strength and mortality in men: prospective cohort study
Association of Grip Strength With Risk of All-Cause Mortality, Cardiovascular Diseases, and Cancer in Community-Dwelling Populations: A Meta-analys... - PubMed - NCBI


and

The association of lean and fat mass with all-cause mortality in older adults: The Cardiovascular Health Study. - PubMed - NCBI
Mid-arm muscle circumference as a significant predictor of all-cause mortality in male individuals

I'd echo what @aciampa , @Pavel Macek and @jef have mentioned so far.

Stay strong, encourage this guy to remain highly active and get some long slow distance work in. Preferably outside.

 

[Snowman]

I don't think it's a bad idea to try to quantify your health, but I think you have to be careful about how much we value those numbers. Have you ever been to an amusement park, and seen those "you must be this tall to ride" signs? If you have to be 3 feet tall to safely go on a ride, that doesn't mean that you'll be safer or have more fun if you're 6 feet tall. After 3 feet, the benefit starts to drop off. I think a lot of "health numbers" (VO2 max, Triglycerides, HDL, fasting blood glucose, 1RM deadlift, etc) operate in a similar manner. Just because "bad" numbers are strongly correlated with poor health outcomes, doesn't mean that exceptionally "good" numbers guarantee health and vitality.

If I had a friend that "felt healthy" because he had a 4xBW deadlift, but his VO2Max, lipid profile, and A1C were total crap, I would probably advise him to work on his diet and maybe even do some good ol' fashioned cardio. If that same person had numbers that were good, but not exceptional, then you know what? He's probably healthy.

 

[Oscar]

My take on this is that these parameters might be a good indicator of health if they come "naturally". There was a similar discussion a while back about grip strength and longevity/health.

What I mean is that, if oneself has an active and healthy life, then VO2 max might be good as a consequence of that (specially if compared to the VO2 max of a sedentary, overweight 70 year old) Therefore, VO2 max becomes an indicator of health and physical activity. Same happens with grip strength: if we exercise, lift weights or have a phisically active job, then our grip might be strong. So grip strength becomes an indicator of physical activity. This doesn't mean that if a sedentary unhealthy person sits on his couch all day long doing captain of crush grippers, he will become healthy and live to 120 years old.

So my opinion is that training to increase an indicator doesn't make much sense. On the other hand, leading a healthy life and having that indicator come up naturally, that makes sense to me. The good thing is that your friend is already doing this.

 

[Steve Freides]

Now, the thing is, he wants to make sure his Vo2 max is good for his age, because his primary focus is healthy ageing and longevity, and V02 max capacity is a marker for healthy ageing.

Lots to talk about there. As other have mentioned, VO2MAX is a measure of VO2MAX. Perhaps @mprevost wants to comment here, too?

But the thing that caught my eye the most was "his primary focus is healthy ageing and longevity." I am not convinced that those two go hand-in-hand. Mind you, I realize that being healthier in a general sense probably means you get a better quality of life and a longer life, but I'm sure there are things we can do that might improve the quality of our lives while shortening it, and vice versa.

And this:

He also does non-strenuous mobility and stability exercises.

"Non-strenuous mobility and stability exercises" - OK. I haven't found a lot of value to those. To me - cue the Flexible Steel banner flying in the background here - strength and mobility go together. E.g., when I'm working my Cossack sequence, I'm working on my mobility, but you can rest assured I'm _tired_ putting my body through those positions because, well, I don't want to rant too much here, but the same goes for stability, too. My stability work is doing a heavy, one-legged deadlift, and I wouldn't characterize it as "non-strenuous."

Rant over.

-S-

 

[mprevost]

VO2 max is a marker of healthy aging but the kinds of epidemiological studies that were used to reach this conclusion, cannot really assign causation. The unanswered question is, "Did these people retain a higher VO2 max because they were healthier or are they healthier because they maintained a higher VO2 max?" You can speculate that a person with poorer health would most likely be less active, and perhaps be heavier (VO2 max is a ratio of aerobic power/body weight) so VO2 max would decline with poor health over time. It could be that the people who avoided illness were more likely to have been able to maintain more of their VO2 max with age. This is the same question prompted by the study that showed that people who could not get up off the floor were at greater risk of mortality. Is getting up off the floor the cause or the effect? In that case I believe it is the effect and not the cause. I suspect that in the case of VO2 max it is at least partially an "effect" as well.

The primary cause for the decline in VO2 max (but there are other causes as well) with age is the reduction in maximum heart rate with age. However, a reduction in max heart rate does not always occur. I am about average here, despite having trained aerobically with regularity for the last 20 years. My max heart rate has certainly declined at 50 years old. I have not seen a heart rate over 185 in years. I used to be able to hold 185 for some time. Now I am suffering at 175 BPM. What I can do at any submaximal heart rate has not really declined significantly at all, but my top end certainly has. However, my top end was high enough that even with a decline I would still be in the top 10% for 18-25 year olds.

Interestingly, we don't know why some (most actually) see a decline in max heart rate with age and others do not, or see very little. It is interesting to see some age group competitors get more and more competitive as they age because their max heart rate is not declining.

 

[mprevost]

You already received answers to my point. It would just be another number that might be anything but indicative in your individual. If he needs numbers in his life, have at it. If not, why bother?

Does he run? Have him run a fast mile. Use this as a baseline. Retest whenever he feels the need for more numbers.

Being capable is a far better metric of fitness than what labs can produce. Is his resting HR low, for him? Does he breathe well? Etc.

I've found lab VO2 max values to correlate very well with 1.5 mile run time. This is the chart I used (from ACSM) when testing midshipmen and staff at the Naval Academy. The nice thing was both staff and MIDs were running the 1.5 mile test twice per year so we could compare their times to their lab VO2 max. It was always very close, except for some cases of performance anxiety and poor pacing. In those cases, the lab test was a better measure of fitness.

 

[Anna C]

VO2 max is a ratio of aerobic power/body weight

If VO2 max is a measure of one's aerobic capacity, and increased aerobic capacity is associated with health, then it seems a valid measure relative to health.

So the question in my mind is, are these two things the same? "I want to increase my aerobic capacity." and "I want to increase my VO2 max."

 

[coolrunnings]

I've found lab VO2 max values to correlate very well with 1.5 mile run time. This is the chart I used (from ACSM) when testing midshipmen and staff at the Naval Academy. The nice thing was both staff and MIDs were running the 1.5 mile test twice per year so we could compare their times to their lab VO2 max. It was always very close, except for some cases of performance anxiety and poor pacing. In those cases, the lab test was a better measure of fitness.
View attachment 3944

6:10 1.5 mile run?!?!

 

[mark reinke]

So the question in my mind is, are these two things the same? "I want to increase my aerobic capacity." and "I want to increase my VO2 max."

Not really.

This'll really only happen in deconditioned individuals.

If you've been consistently doing reasonable aerobic training and you want to have a higher VO2 Max, pick your parents better.

I worked in a cardiopulmonary physiology lab for a couple of years as a research assistant.

We tested lots of fit and not so fit college kids as well as some outstanding athletes.

It was amazing to see the variation in the fittest folks... We saw some with VO2 maxes in the 60's and some as high as the mid 70's... Interestingly, they're actual performances did not vary by the same amount, but had much smaller differences...

In those cases, the percentage of VO2 Max at which they could run without accumulating lactate was a stronger correlate to their performance.

This has nothing to do with longevity directly, but has a lot to do with Fitness if we measure it by capability to do a task.

On the other end of the spectrum, deconditioned individuals have much greater opportunity to increase VO2 max via the traditional adaptations to endurance exercise: increased capillary density of muscle beds, increased mitochondrial density, improved oxygen extraction at the level of the muscle, etc.

In the event that deconditioned individuals improve their aerobic capacity via aerobic training, they'll often see an increase in VO2 max as well.

It seems like it is the ceiling of VO2 max that is limited by genetics, but not the floor.

 

[offwidth]

@Anna C
What you do by intelligent training however is increase your fractional utilization of VO2 max. Which I believe in essence is increasing your aerobic capacity.