Kettlebell Back to the bell with one size option

[Michael Perry]

Has anyone tried adjusting other variables in an A+ A program when you don’t have the prescribed bell size?

In a few days I’ll have my snatch test bell after a months long absence from iron and want to do some snatching (and other skills practice) for the few months I have it.

While one might expect numerous programs using the snatch test weight, the ones I’ve looked at are actually based on “a bell you can snatch 100 times in five minutes,” which is not the same thing. I doubt I could comfortably do 100 in five with my test bell right now. Also, most don’t actually use the snatch test bell but adjust to a lower or higher multiple of the weight. For example @Derek Toshner ’s 060 sounds awesome but uses a lighter weight, and calls for 100 in 5 as a prerequisite and then uses a lighter weight in practice, so out on both counts. 525A has a prerequisite of 100 in 10 minutes but uses a heavier weight in practice, so also out.

I suspect that taking a proven SE program that calls for using a “bell you can snatch 100 times in five minutes” and making a minor adjustment to reps and/or rest would probably be fine. For example, starting with four reps instead of five, taking more rest than OTM sets. If anyone has done so, I’d be interested in your experience.

However, I figure I’ll start by just adding some easy swings to my current bodyweight training while I get over jet lag - low volume, plenty of rest, just to get my body used to ballistics again. After a week or so I should be ready for more difficulty and more structure. After a few more weeks of A+A swings I hope to be ready to make snatches the main course, either by adjusting a Strong Endurance snatch program as above or just applying SE principles myself.

We’ll see what happens. The bell I’ll have is the bell I’ll have, so any changes will be to other variables.

 

[Steve Freides]

How about achieving Simple with your bell as a foundation? Then increasing volume according to the guidelines of articles published here, and only then working on your snatch. For your situation, a good progression might be timeless simple first then timed simple, then additional volume.

-S-

 

[Tjerr]

I'm using my snatch bell for the K1 program from Hardstyle Method, you need a 20-25 RM to use for the low-pull snatch program

 

[Oscar]

Has anyone tried adjusting other variables in an A+ A program when you don’t have the prescribed bell size?

In a few days I’ll have my snatch test bell after a months long absence from iron and want to do some snatching (and other skills practice) for the few months I have it.

While one might expect numerous programs using the snatch test weight, the ones I’ve looked at are actually based on “a bell you can snatch 100 times in five minutes,” which is not the same thing. I doubt I could comfortably do 100 in five with my test bell right now. Also, most don’t actually use the snatch test bell but adjust to a lower or higher multiple of the weight. For example @Derek Toshner ’s 060 sounds awesome but uses a lighter weight, and calls for 100 in 5 as a prerequisite and then uses a lighter weight in practice, so out on both counts. 525A has a prerequisite of 100 in 10 minutes but uses a heavier weight in practice, so also out.

I suspect that taking a proven SE program that calls for using a “bell you can snatch 100 times in five minutes” and making a minor adjustment to reps and/or rest would probably be fine. For example, starting with four reps instead of five, taking more rest than OTM sets. If anyone has done so, I’d be interested in your experience.

However, I figure I’ll start by just adding some easy swings to my current bodyweight training while I get over jet lag - low volume, plenty of rest, just to get my body used to ballistics again. After a week or so I should be ready for more difficulty and more structure. After a few more weeks of A+A swings I hope to be ready to make snatches the main course, either by adjusting a Strong Endurance snatch program as above or just applying SE principles myself.

We’ll see what happens. The bell I’ll have is the bell I’ll have, so any changes will be to other variables.

The only bell I have at home is the 32, all others are at my office. This is a rather heavy weight for me. I can do 5 reps of snatches and not much more.


This year one of my goals is to do 24 sets of 5 snatches with the 32 in A+A way. Out of fun I decided not to use lighter bells, and progress with the 32 only. So I started with 2 hand swings, then one hand swings, then high pulls, and then snatches. I'm currently alternating a day of snatches and a day of swings for a total of about 60 reps and so far so good.

 

[Adachi]

The only bell I have at home is the 32, all others are at my office. This is a rather heavy weight for me. I can do 5 reps of snatches and not much more.

If ...

I only had my 32kg bell.​

and I wanted to work on my snatches
and I was good for 5 reps max-ish​

and I wanted to use A+A style training (AGT)​

and I had about an hour ...​

then, for me, my A+A practice would be something like alternate (2,3/40) @ 90s for 60 minutes (100 total reps).

but that's just me.

and 30 minutes at that pace would still be a very productive day's work.

 

[Steve W.]

I suspect that taking a proven SE program that calls for using a “bell you can snatch 100 times in five minutes” and making a minor adjustment to reps and/or rest would probably be fine. For example, starting with four reps instead of five, taking more rest than OTM sets. If anyone has done so, I’d be interested in your experience.

It sounds like you already have the answer here.

Plan 025 nominally uses a bell you can complete the snatch test with, but you start by building volume with sets of 5 OTM. So that should be accessible even if you can't do 100 in 5 minutes already. You'll just be starting with fewer sets.

Or you can just use the AXE progression starting with sets of 4. That should work fine too.

Or just do "classic" A+A, doing sets of 5 and resting by feel with generous recovery between sets. Or set a timed interval generous enough so you can get 20 sets to start with and build volume from there, waving your volume from session to session by feel. That's how I did A+A style training for years -- sets of 5, generous rest intervals, and define sessions by target number of repeats, not by when you hit a stop sign (in other words, resting long enough so you can hit your number of repeats without ever hitting a stop sign).

You can also mix in Q&D 015 (snatch only, 10 reps/set, on the 3:00) and/or 044 sessions. For 044, you can cook the rep schemes in various ways. If 5 or 6 series of 10/2 is out of reach, or more of a suckfest than you're up for, you can reduce the reps and start with 5/2, or anywhere between 5 and 10. 5/2 has a very A+A kind of feel, and you can do more series to build total volume. Or use 10/2 and just start with sessions of two series. You can even add reps above 10, working up to 15/2. BTW, I hate the 5/4 rep scheme because it just feels unpleasantly rushed so I never use it, but use a variety of two-set permutations.

In my experience, this kind of training is less about following a specific plan and more about working within general principles.

 

[Oscar]

If ...

I only had my 32kg bell.​

and I wanted to work on my snatches​

and I was good for 5 reps max-ish​

and I wanted to use A+A style training (AGT)​

and I had about an hour ...​

then, for me, my A+A practice would be something like alternate (2,3/40) @ 90s for 60 minutes (100 total reps).

but that's just me.

and 30 minutes at that pace would still be a very productive day's work.

Yup I'm doing something similar, and will eventually transition to this in a while.

At the moment I'm doing 6 sets of 5 every 90 seconds with daily frequency. This gives me a total of 30 reps and I add some swings to reach 50-60 reps. I will eventually transition to ~20 sets of 3, 4 or 5 reps, but that would be a type of program to do 3 times per week or so, instead of daily.

Fully agree that 40 sets of 2-3 snatches with 32 kg is a great workout. I didn't understand what (2,3/40) means though.

 

[Adachi]

Fully agree that 40 sets of 2-3 snatches with 32 kg is a great workout. I didn't understand what (2,3/40) means though.

yeah the (2,3/40) means ...

40 sets. alternating 2 and 3 reps.

so, ...

SNATCHES​

set#​	Left​	Right​
1​	2​
2​	​	2​
3​	3​
4​	​	3​
5​	2​
6​	​	2​
7​	3​
8​	​	3​

continue this pattern till you reach set Number 40.​

 

[Oscar]

yeah the (2,3/40) means ...

40 sets. alternating 2 and 3 reps.

so, ...

SNATCHES​

set#​	Left​	Right​
1​	2​
2​	2​
3​	3​
4​	3​
5​	2​
6​	2​
7​	3​
8​	3​

continue this pattern till you reach set Number 40.​

Awesome, that makes sense. Thanks

 

[Michael Perry]

How about achieving Simple with your bell as a foundation? Then increasing volume according to the guidelines of articles published here, and only then working on your snatch. For your situation, a good progression might be timeless simple first then timed simple, then additional volume.

-S-

Thanks Steve. Seems a very good way to start handing the iron again. Once I got to simple with this bell, I think I’d be similar where I am now in terms of thinking about next steps, but it would then be informed by actual practice.

 

[Michael Perry]

It sounds like you already have the answer here.

In my experience, this kind of training is less about following a specific plan and more about working within general principles.

As you can probably tell, I was approaching this with a similar mindset, and am prepared to just work with SE principles rather than tweak a plan, although the latter would be my preference.

However, I asked a similar question elsewhere and a knowledgeable coach cautioned that by changing the reps you can end up with very different stress/adaptations. I’m sure this is true if changes are excessive, although I wouldn’t expect it from the kind of changes I’m contemplating. In any case, this is why I remain curious about it, and have expanded the reach of my question and gone into more detail here.

 

[Steve W.]

However, I asked a similar question elsewhere and a knowledgeable coach cautioned that by changing the reps you can end up with very different stress/adaptations. I’m sure this is true if changes are excessive, although I wouldn’t expect it from the kind of changes I’m contemplating.

Yes, I agree this "danger" is probably overstated.

As I've posted here on several occasions, while I like for there to be a plausible explanation for what physiological effects a program might have and the mechanisms by which it leads to those effects, I tend to mostly ignore physiology and look at training through a black box, stimulus and response lens. I have no direct way of observing or evaluating any physiological processes involved in training -- only subjective experience and empirical observation. So I don't separate physiological adaptations from the mechanics of the programming.

Therefore, I mostly just practice the kind of work I want to get better at, that makes me feel good, and that I enjoy. Whether I'm doing sets of 10 with longer rests, like in 015 or timeless S&S, or sets of 5 in "classic" A+A with generous rests, or sets of 5 OTM until hitting a stop sign, I feel like it's all variations on the same theme. Even Q&D, where the work gets a little more compressed and can turn into a suckfest (especially after a couple of series of 15/2), falls under the overall SE umbrella. I like the variety because I feel like I'm getting better at a wider range of things (shorter sets, longer sets, more intense sessions, longer sessions, heavier weight, lighter weight, etc.). If I'm getting better at doing those things (in a sustainable way, without negative repercussions), then I'm getting positive adaptations under the hood, whatever those might be.

All the SE biochemistry and so forth is fine for those who are interested, but it reminds me of the line from Taleb's Antifragile that Pavel is fond of quoting:

We are built to be dupes for theories. But theories come and go; experience stays. Explanations change all the time, and have changed all the time in history (because of causal opacity, the invisibility of causes) with people involved in the incremental development of ideas thinking they always had a definitive theory; experience remains constant.

Like, whatever happens to my mitochondria is their business. I have a "don't ask, don't tell" relationship with my mitochondria. But if you tell me how I can develop the ability to sustain a high power output over a high volume of work for a long period of time, and do it in a sustainable way, then I'm listening.

Pavel also uses a line from Michael Crichton's Sphere to emphasize the value of a practical, empirical mindset:

Understanding is a delaying tactic...Do you want to understand how to swim, or do you want to jump in and start swimming? Only people who are afraid of the water want to understand it. Other people jump in and get wet.

 

[Steve Freides]

a knowledgeable coach cautioned that by changing the reps you can end up with very different stress/adaptations. I’m sure this is true if changes are excessive, although I wouldn’t expect it from the kind of changes I’m contemplating. In any case, this is why I remain curious about it, and have expanded the reach of my question and gone into more detail here.

Yeah, but that's much more the case if you decide, e.g., to do sets of 15 bench presses with a light weight instead of 3 sets of 5 with a heavier weight. For kettlebell ballistics, I'd say for most people and situations, it's a non-issue.

-S-

 

[Michael Perry]

Yeah, but that's much more the case if you decide, e.g., to do sets of 15 bench presses with a light weight instead of 3 sets of 5 with a heavier weight. For kettlebell ballistics, I'd say for most people and situations, it's a non-issue.

-S-

Right. Of course it must matter to a degree or some of these ballistics programs wouldn’t be as prescriptive, and deviation wouldn’t be so frowned upon. But I agree, and I think the kinds of changes I’m suggesting aren’t really “changing the program” but making it accessible.