all posts post new thread

Kettlebell 1 vs 2hand swings in S&S

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Thank you, @aciampa - I agree with your sentiment here completely, and also want to take the opportunity to thank you for being a participant in our forum. Al brings us insights from his extensive experience as a teacher and program designer.

I'll also chime in on the subject of moving to a larger size bell - here's how I did it very recently.

We've discussed many strategies, but one that doesn't get mentioned often enough, IMHO, sets of more than 10 swings. Here are my swing sessions since January 1 (today is January 19, 11 sessions in 19 calendar days.)

Notes:

1. I am in an off-competition cycle and compete as a deadlifter, so my S&S is a "back burner" approach but

2. I am nonetheless interested in making progress.

3. After not having swings in my programming, I began with them again 2-3 months ago.

4. I am a low-volume trainer in everything and like about 60 swings per session on average. Because I've moved to heavier weights, the average below is closer to 50 per session. That will go back up again.

This is how I progressed from 28 kg to 32 kg for 1h swings - you may wish to note the variety of weight, of rest periods, of set lengths. I hope, if you read From Simple to Sinister: Waving Volume on S&S, where Pavel discusses deviating from the 100 swings per session of by-the-book S&S, you'll find that I've taken a similar approach here, in principle. The details of the implementation are my own, for me.

01 Jan - on the 1:30
40 kg x 2h x 10
28 kg x 15L, 15R
40 kg x 2h x 10 - total 50

04 Jan - on the 2:00
28 kg x 20L, 20R - total 40

05 Jan - on the 1:00
28 kg x 10's - total 80

09 Jan - on the 2:00
28 kg x 16L, 16R
other lifts
28 kg x 20L, 20R - total 72

10 Jan - on the 4:00 (1:5 work:rest ratio)
28 kg x 25L, 25R - total 50

11 Jan - on the 1:00
28 kg x 10's - total 40 (feeling tired)

12 Jan - on the 5:00
40 kg x 2h x 10's - total 20 (more tired than expected so stopped)

13 Jan - on the :45 (heavy: 48kg for 2h, 32 kg for 1h)
48 kg x 2h x 5
32 kg x 7L, 7R
48 kg x 2h x 5
32 kg x 8L, 8R - total 40

16 Jan - on the 1:00
48 kg x 2h x 10
28 kg x 15L, 15R
32 kg x 10L, 10R
48 kg x 2h x 10 - total 70

17 Jan - on the 1:00
32 kg x 10's - total 60

18 Jan - on the 1:15
28 kg x 15's - total 60

-S-
 
Steve, your post gives me the confidence to write mine, as you include 2h swings in the mix.

By the way, do we call S&S with the 40kg bell "Solid"? So, it's Simple-Solid-Sinister?

Anyhow, I did indeed move up from Simple to "Solid", and I did it by (perhaps) misreading the book.

Most definitely it was a challenge to get to the 40 initially, as it took 4 months from the start of February to into June. So, it was indeed due to training that I was able to get to the 40 later on, and not due to inherent natural strength.

I've got some videos on my training blog showing me initially playing with the 40kg bell. I could swing it two handed but could not do it at all one handed. The TGU was never a problem really. I've spent my life hiking and doing judo and similar, so I think my all-directions pushing strength is fairly good.

I started by suddenly jumping up to the 40 from the 32. I did all swings 2 handed. After about a month I started doing 5R 5L and then 90 2H. Then I progressed to 5R 5L 5R 5L and then 80 2H. Then I went to 10R 10L and 90 2H, then after another few weeks 10R 10L 10R 10L and 80 2H. Then I pretty much just jumped up to all 100 2H, having at times to go back to the mixed method, or to drop down in weight to the 32. And, this is more or less where I am today still. My goal of course is the timing protocol with the 40, just as it was with the 32. I'll move up to the 48 when the 40 seems to be getting too easy, which might be quite a while, hahaha!

I weigh 100 kg and I'm 185cm tall, so evidently I do have physical mass to back up my efforts. (I can certainly appreciate that it would be much harder to do this with a body mass of say only 65kg like some of the members on these forums.)
 
And researcher, @aciampa, and other things I'm sure I don't even know.

You're very welcome - I'm very happy to help do what I can to make the world a stronger place by lending a hand here.

-S-
 
Hello,

@Kozushi
I weigh 64 and I am 183cm, and swing @40. For me, the swing is easier than the GU. It is impossible for me at the moment to do it @40. I admit that is currently not my goal. I only maintain my 32 GU on variety day. Then I confirm you must be super strong for GU the 40 easily eh eh ;)

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
pet' said:
Hello,

@Kozushi
I weigh 64 and I am 183cm, and swing @40. For me, the swing is easier than the GU. It is impossible for me at the moment to do it @40. I admit that is currently not my goal. I only maintain my 32 GU on variety day. Then I confirm you must be super strong for GU the 40 easily eh eh ;)

Kind regards,

Pet'
Click to expand...
Maybe it just shows how we're naturally gifted with different kinds of physiques? To me TGUs are awesome exercise, but not difficult - never were. The swings are where I feel truly challenged. This might also show why I was terrible at kendo my whole life before S&S strengthened up my back chain of muscles.
 
I have also found the jump from 32K to 40K 1 handed swings a big one. I was struggling to get a good set of 5 with the 40K when I lost access to my 32k and 40K for a couple of months, so ended up doing double swings with a 20K + 24K. When I went back to the 40K, I could a crisp set of 10 no problem, and am now working more sets in gradually.

I know this doesn't quality as s&s , but thought I would share, as for me it seems that getting used to a total swing weight greater than the target 1 handed swing weight worked well.
 
Hello,

If memory serves well, in an old thread, it appeared that in general light people consider swings easier than GU, and that is the contrary for heavier people.

However I do not know if there is such a correlation between bdw and weight jumps

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
pet' said:
If memory serves well, in an old thread, it appeared that in general light people consider swings easier than GU, and that is the contrary for heavier people.
Click to expand...

I am 103kg (230lbs) and I definitely fit into "heavier" case - I went to 32kg TGUs very quickly, looking now for 40kg, while struggling with 32kg 1H swings (grip and endurance issues). Anyway, doing 16-24-32 progression on get ups was smooth and easy while going from 24 to 32 on swings is very rough.
 
Last edited:
Hello,

@damogari
that is exactly my opposite. I went pretty fast until 40 for swings but I struggle a little more with GU (currently @32). GU was my main concern when wanted to get Simple standard.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
Pet'
You're a BEAST if you're swinging 40kg with one hand 100 times given that your bodyweight is 64kg! This makes me feel so weak in comparison given that 40 is my maximum for S&S and I weigh 100kg!

David S
Yes, this is pretty much exactly my own experience with moving up in weight. I remember going up to 2h swings with the 40 before I felt like I truly "owned" the 32; about a month later, I felt tired and so did one handed swings again with the 32 and they were an utter joke.

Why I think Pavel set S&S as being a 1h swing system is due to the muscles being activated. I reread the second half of his book today and he mentions doing a test at a university not far from where I live in Canada where the professor hooked up electrodes to his muscles while he was swinging the 32 1 and 2 handed. The 1 handed swings activated his glutes 20% more and his lats 50% more. So, what this tells me is that I'd have to 2h swing 50% heavier than the 32 to get the same lat benefit and 20% heavier to get the same glute benefit (etc). So I'd need a 38.4 kg bell for the same glute benefit but a 48(!)kg bell for the same lat benefit as I'm getting with the 32 single handed. Evidently, 2h swinging the 40 then is more of a glute workout than single swings with the 32, by just a little bit, but it fails in the lat category miserably!

So, I think the math proves quite well that 2h swings are not as good as one handed swings unless done a LOT heavier. So, to get at least as good a workout as swinging the 32 1handed 2handedly, you'd need either one 48kg bell or two 24s.

As y'all might have guessed, I happily "regressed" to doing S&S completely with the 32 today again, hahaha. :)
 
Hello,

I think what @Kozushi underlines here is something interesting.

It can be an option to "cheat" and progress: you work for a while with a heavier bell on the 2H version. Then, you get back to your lighter bell, using the 1H version to see how it goes. Theoretically, the lighter version might be improved.

Plus, maybe there is a kind of "optimal weight". This means a weight you can handle for very long time, because it does not burn you out at all, but maintains your strength. Then a kind of "cruising speed" weight.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
pet' said:
you work for a while with a heavier bell on the 2H version. Then, you get back to your lighter bell, using the 1H version to see how it goes. Theoretically, the lighter version might be improved.
Click to expand...

This makes good sense to me, it's the tactic I always used when doing swings with the rop.
 
pet' said:
Hello,

I think what @Kozushi underlines here is something interesting.

It can be an option to "cheat" and progress: you work for a while with a heavier bell on the 2H version. Then, you get back to your lighter bell, using the 1H version to see how it goes. Theoretically, the lighter version might be improved.

Plus, maybe there is a kind of "optimal weight". This means a weight you can handle for very long time, because it does not burn you out at all, but maintains your strength. Then a kind of "cruising speed" weight.

Kind regards,

Pet'
Click to expand...
Yes, I am living proof that this system works. Of course, while using the heavier weight 2 handed you are losing the benefits to your lats and similar muscles that the 1h swings give you, but it is true that after a week or so of the heavier weight, you can go back to the lighter one 1 handed and find it's super easy to do! It's a kind of cheating of course, but only for a short time, in the long term it works out well.

My "cruising" weight is the 32. It maintains my physique well but doesn't challenge me very much - it gets my heart up to be sure but it just isn't hard to do the workout. I easily do S&S with the 32 in 15 minutes rain or shine!
 
Hey wait a minute. I just did some math in my head comparing the 1h 32kg with 2h 40kg swings, and I think it's better to do the 2h with the 40, providing the objective is to mix in more 1h swings over time until it's all 40kg, and here's why.

Based on the math in the S&S book, a 2h swing uses 80% the glute strength, and 2/3 the lat strength of the 1h swing.

So let's do the math.

What is 80% of 40kg? 32kg EXACTLY! So, there is no loss AT ALL in this "glute" or we'll assume "back chain" area!

What is 2/3 of 40kg? 26.7, so 5kg lighter than 1h with the 32. Percent wise how much is lost? 16.7% That really is NOT a lot of loss.

So, while if I had the choice of staying forever with the 40 2h over 1h with the 32, no way! But, as a transition towards 1h with the 40, why not? Also, I suspect simply handling heavier weight overall is better for the body - 40 is heavier than 32.

I'm not at all suggesting an "improvement" to S&S or challenging the book. I'm speaking of a lazy way out, since for me it's just annoying switching between two different weights. I'd rather just stick 100% with the 40. Also, I'm saying, "yes I lose a bit" with this method, but in the end I get to the 40 1 handed, so it's all and well at the end anyhow.
 
And... The above post by me is garbage. The book says nothing about how much the lats get used in a 2handed swing. This would explain why 2handed swings don't trim down the waistline in my experience whereas 1handed swings do.

So, basically, 2handed swinging with the 40 gives only the same "back chain" results as the 1h 32, but is likely VERY far behind the 1h 32 in all the lats&twisty stuff that is needed to keep the waistline trim and strong.

So, I think I'm back to my "2 handed swings (unless VERY heavy) suck" attitude.
 
@Kozushi ..from the book...

"When I swung a 32kg kettlebell two-handed in Prof. Stuart McGill’s lab, my glutes fired up to 80% maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC). When I did it one-handed, the recruitment was up to 100%. And the lat contraction jumped from 100% to 150%! In case you are wondering how it is possible to contract a muscle 150%, the max is isometric." from "Kettlebell Simple & Sinister" by Pavel Tsatsouline

Also...

"The swing on the left generates more power. The one on the right recruits more muscle...Why would you do two-arm swings at all if the one-arm version is so great? Because two-arm swings generate more power, as proven on the force platform. With reduced stabilization demands, you can really let it rip. Hence, do both types of swings." from "Kettlebell Simple & Sinister" by Pavel Tsatsouline
 
Hello,

@jhpowers
That is interesting

However, a precision: this experiment on 1H / 2H is done with the same bell weight whereas @Kozushi seemed to look for a kind of equivalence between 1H and 2H but with different weights.

In another thread, if memory serves, I think we say something more or less like '1H swing are for anti-twist and strength training, whereas 2H swings are for power generation'. That was said for the same weight of course.

Pavel's statement does not really surprise me. Indeed, shadows swings are usually done with 2H.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
jhpowers said:
Why would you do two-arm swings at all if the one-arm version is so great? Because two-arm swings generate more power, as proven on the force platform. With reduced stabilization demands, you can really let it rip. Hence, do both types of swings." from "Kettlebell Simple & Sinister" by Pavel Tsatsouline
Click to expand...
I've wondered about this quote. For the average Joe looking for GPP for the minimum effective dose, is there any need to work on power generation? In other words, for a given investment of time, is the opportunity cost of doing two-arm swings (not working on trunk stability and strength as you would with one-arm swings) worth the benefit (power generation), for the average Joe?

Put another way, once the average Joe achieves Simple, to what end would he need to train for power? What is its higher purpose?
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom