all posts post new thread

Kettlebell How are kettlebell swings not Cardio???

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
I believe like so many things in life it depends. if i swing 40kg+ bell sets of 5-7 is pretty much pure strength/power works. if I pick up a 16-20kg bell and do so 30 work 30 seconds rest of swings thats more in the cardio realm. and the weights and rep ranges in-between are well in-between the two. swings are one of those things were depending on how there done they count for different goals.
 
Recently, a number of athletes on the forum stated that kettlebell swings aren't cardio training. I really don't understand this.

What constitutes "cardio" and how is S&S not "cardio"? I thought it counted for cardio.

I agree (kinda).

Double KB swings with 48 Kg. bells plus a couple of chains around your torso is not "cardio".

1->10->1 deadlifts (that's 100 reps total) is not strength.

It all depends.
 
Cardio and aerobic training are NOT the same, although many people mistakenly use them interchangeably. We all know that kettlebell training can be used to benefit the aerobic system, so there is no question there. Producing training adaptations for the heart (cardiac muscle) directly is not interchangeable with adaptations to the aerobic system.

For example, the most common protocol to increase the size of the left ventricle of the heart is 30-90 minutes of light continuous activity with the heart rate typically 120-150 BPM; this is commonly known as the "cardiac output method" of training. Keep in mind that athletes competing in endurance events like marathons or long cycling events will need MUCH longer duration than that.

This protocol is generally understood to work best when used with activities of little-to-no resistance, meaning it is hard to make a kettlebell work well for this protocol. One of the reasons for this is that achieving the desired stretching of the left ventricle of the heart is dependent on having sufficient blood flow into the ventricle, or "end-diastolic volume." If the heart is beating too fast then it doesn't have time to fill the ventricle sufficiently. Likewise, if there is too much resistance in the muscles, then the correlated vasoconstriction can result in reduced the blood flow back into the heart, again reducing the amount of stretch the ventricle gets.

This is why for the cardiac output method you typically need activities like walking, jogging, cycling, swimming, etc. for the method to work. The good news for you @Kozushi as a judoka is that you can likely use uchikomi for this. If you did 30+ min of uchikomi at low-to-medium intensity levels that should be sufficient.
This might help explain why I have so many "what the heck" episodes after doing a lot of walking. For instance, not only is my entire body stronger (and better able to deal with S&S and judo) but I feel much more alert and energetic, need less sleep etc.

It's actually a VERY good thing you posted here, for my sake, since I had been neglecting this true cardio exercise for a long time, thinking that I was covering it with S&S. I guess judo was handling it to some extent, but judo is pretty heavy exercise - even uchikomi is at times. I'm now aware that I need the low intensity - long duration activity like walking to attain my goal of a long healthy life (in addition to the heavier exercises of course, like S&S).
 
I'm now aware that I need the low intensity - long duration activity like walking to attain my goal of a long healthy life

I think that might be stated a little strongly... you could still have a long healthy life without it. But I do feel sure that it is beneficial. :)

(Opinions may vary on both counts.)

I guess the question to ask yourself, for anyone reading this thread and drawing this conclusion, is what exactly is your objective with steady state cardio? It can be good for heart health. It can be good for aerobic base building (building slow-twitch muscle fiber, aerobic enzymes, capillaries, and other adaptations). It can be good for endurance. It can be good for nice-looking legs. It can be good for aiding recovery from other more intense training, which can boost your performance because you can train more and train harder in other ways. It can be good for becoming a better fat-burner, and burning calories during the activity. All of these things are great -- but none of them are "necessary for a long healthy life" unless one has poor cardiovascular health, obesity, or other health conditions that can be directly affected, especially if a person is doing lots of other training.
 
Last edited:
I think that might be stated a litte strongly... you could still have a long healthy life without it. But I do feel sure that it is beneficial. :)

(Opinions may vary on both counts.)

I guess the question to ask yourself, for anyone reading this thread and drawing this conclusion, is what exactly is your objective with steady state cardio? It can be good for heart health. It can be good for aerobic base building (building slow-twitch muscle fiber, aerobic enzymes, capillaries, and other adaptations). It can be good for endurance. It can be good for nice-looking legs. It can be good for aiding recovery from other more intense training, which can boost your performance because you can train more and train harder in other ways. It can be good for becoming a better fat-burner, and burning calories during the activity. All of these things are great -- but none of them are "necessary for a long healthy life" unless one has poor cardiovascular health, obesity, or other health conditions that can be directly affected, especially if a person is doing lots of other training.
Anything like this that improves heart health is a smart thing to do I'd think. The high intensity stuff fills in one gap and the low intensity - long duration stuff another. This at least makes sense to me superficially. Heart health is so important.

I also happen to be someone who used to use walking as my staple exercise (the way I use S&S now). What I've always noticed with walking (for a minimum of 75 minutes a time) is better strength and endurance. I've been noticing this yet again recently with how my S&S is getting better after getting out for several walks now that the weather is warmer. My legs are stronger from walking, most definitely, and also I've got a better asymmetrical load base from it to handle the TGUs. Maybe the benefits of walking are more noticeable the heavier one is. At 100kg, I'm moving a lot of weight with each half-lunge I take as a step, and this all has to be stabilized with muscles running through my whole body.
 
I often wondered exactly how much cardio benefit I was getting from S&S. I did it it test mode almost exclusively for a year and thought it was no big deal, kinda used it as a warm up for other training 4-5 days/week.

One day I used a BP monitor and was a little shocked to see 100/60 or lower and HR of 48/49 just getting out of bed. I checked it a few times to be sure it was right. It seemed no matter if I was doing karate training, climbing a hill, working ,walking, biking or anything else it all seemed very easy. I don't have anything against steady state cardio at all but I just haven't been willing to add anything to my w/o schedule as I'm maxed out. I do A+A swings and have recently played around with the 'cluster' protocol. It's awesome and saves some time.

It comes down in the end to what you want to do. I don't expect a marathon runner to be able to perform S&S and in turn I don't expect to be able to run 26 miles..
 
I don't expect a marathon runner to be able to perform S&S and in turn I don't expect to be able to run 26 miles..

These are not mutually exclusive, and certainly not unreasonable at all. I may be atypical (and I certainly do not want this to sound like I am boasting) but I do exactly this type of training.

I am with you 100% in that I don't expect people to do this. But they can...

BTW nice HR & BP numbers. You are obviously doing something right...
 
Can it be defined as cardiovascular training? Yes. That should not be confused with sport specific training. If your goal is to run a marathon sub 3h, you shouldnt base the bulk of your training around swings but running. The excercise should always be specific to your goal. With that said I think swings can serve as a good strength excercise to complilment your running, perhaps snatches are even better as stated by Andrew Read in his book Run Strong.
 
Well, I think the beauty if swings lies within their enormous versatility.
You can load them really up, like heavy double swings @5x3 and have a great strength move.
Or go lighter with a single bell and two-hand swings @5x20 with short rest periods and you have more of an cardio move.
 
One question might be - What are the cardiac adaptions that occur in response to training kettelbell swings as prescribed in S&S?

As others have pointed out - "Cardio" can mean different things and different types of training (LSD vs hiit) result in different adaptations.
 
Aren't those all steady-state cardio exercises?
Karate training no, definitely more like HIIT, the other stuff aside from work probably but my intent was to show they were easier for me whenever they popped up in a more sporadic way in my life..
 
To add to the confusion:
Some 40 or so years ago, at a school PE class we had a school year fitness test. Rhr was taken, then 1 or 2 minute step up at a fast pace, hr right after then hr 1 minute later sort of aerobic recovery test. The score then compared to rhr and the top 2 scores, closest to rhr were me and my schoolmate. Me, the sprinter, my friend, the cross country runner. If recovery ability is considered one attribute of cardiac fitness how best to condition that? Slow distance or speed and power?
I still don't know, haha. Still crazy after all these years......
 
Life lesson: vague questions/definitions give vague answers. Define the person's current status, history, goals, etc., the tool(s) in use, the method of application of tool(s), plus how each person responds to the application of the tool, then you can have specific discussion regarding results.

For me, the KB (through S&S) provides enough aerobic capacity for my daily life and athletics as well as healthy cardiovascular measurements in my checkups. If I were using a 12KG? If I were a marathoner? Powerlifting competition coming up? Wanted to gain 50# of muscle? Lose 20# of fat? Answer might be different.

This or that? Yes.
 
I probably was one of the people who stated that. Not joking. And not confused; seriously or otherwise:)
But the statement was made in a certain context, and from a certain perspective. One of an endurance athlete whose events last hours or days. From that perspective... the 10 minutes (give or take) of swings in S&S do not constitute cardio when viewed through my lens.
Do swings and snatches and the like elicit a beneficial cardiac response. You bet they do, and that's partly why I do them. Are they the same cardio benefit one gets from a six hour training ride? No.

It may all come down to semantics, definitions, individual perspectives, and training purposes. But most of us probably agree that swings are pretty darn good for you...

+1 to what @offwidth said. I also may have said something like this, but I also was neither joking nor confused. I based my statement on Kenneth Jay's book "Cardio Code." There is too much in the book to summarize, but in a nutshell, although "traditional" cardio (running, cycling) and "lifting weights fast" will both cause a high heart rate, the adaptations to the heart muscle are different. The adaptations to the heart muscle from lifting weights are not necessarily favorable as it will result in a lack of elasticity to and thickening of the heart muscle. "Traditional" cardio does not have these problems. This is the crux of the problem. "Common sense" may cause many to think that high heart rate = "cardio," but as KJ says in the book, if a high heart rate was all that was needed for "cardio training," he could just scare you into shape.

Applying this information to kettlebell swings, they can be cardio depending on how they are done. If you do light swings at a faster pace, this is more like "traditional" cardio and you will get those adaptations to your heart muscle. The protocol in Viking Warrior Conditioning is biased towards cardio. If you're doing heavier swings then the adaptations may be closer to those caused by weight training. I'm sure that kettlebell swings are on a continuum.

Is KJ right? I do not have the qualifications to make that determination. The book has citations to back up his claims. This ain't broscience. Most of it is to basic physiology texts that presumably have stood the test of time as opposed to poorly designed studies by some grad student who needs to get published. I would say that KJ is correct. Do I like the conclusions? Heck no! I wish he was wrong! I would love it if I could get strength and heart health at once and not have to worry about doing "traditional" cardio. Of course, what I want does not comport what the science says and I'm not going to ignore the science, especially since heart health is important to me.

Speaking of studies, here is a critique of a study that tried to determine if kettlebells can provide benefits similar to traditional cardio. The answer is yes, but you need to work with a light KB for 30 minutes straight i.e., no rest. This is consistent with KJ's recommendations.

Kettlebells as a Cardio Tool: Yay or Nay?
 
I would like to make two more points.

First, I am aware of studies showing that lifting weights improves VO2max. If I recall correctly, these studies involved sedentary and/or obese subjects. Sure, if you get an unfit, likely obese person, up off the coach and doing something, there will usually be a global improvement in fitness markers. Also, we know from the famous (or infamous) Tabata study that anaerobic work can boast aerobic capacity. In addition, the formula for calculating VO2max includes a subject's weight. As weight goes down, VO2max goes up. So, if take a group of sedentary obese subjects and have them do nothing but lift weights, the anaerobic work plus weight loss (assuming they followed a fat loss diet) will result in some aerobic improvement as measured by VO2max. Newbie gains are wonderful! But there will come a point of diminishing returns. There's a reason why endurance athletes don't just lift weights.

Second, cardio training does not need to be hours of long distance work. If you look on Kenneth Jay's website, he has rowing programs that are all based on interval training that meet the criteria for cardio training. Now, if want to run a marathon, you'll need to put the time in on the long runs. As yet, no person seems to have successfully finished an endurance event using nothing but 20 minutes of interval work. But if you're looking for a strong heart interval training is just fine.
 
I normally don't like to get overly pedantic or argue semantics. But sometimes I do. Where do I draw the line? Let me provide an example. I have read articles that have argued vociferously that the "Romanian" deadlift was not invented in Romania. To this I say, who the h*ll cares! Call it the Timbuktu deadlift, it won't change the fact that it's a great exercise for the posterior chain.

But when it comes to defining cardio, the correct definition is important because how you define it will change the nature of the exercise prescription. As Andrew Read explained in his article, if you prepare for a marathon using nothing but circuit training, you're going to have a bad day.

Generally speaking- of course they are.

What does this even mean?
 
I would like to make two more points.

First, I am aware of studies showing that lifting weights improves VO2max. If I recall correctly, these studies involved sedentary and/or obese subjects. Sure, if you get an unfit, likely obese person, up off the coach and doing something, there will usually be a global improvement in fitness markers. Also, we know from the famous (or infamous) Tabata study that anaerobic work can boast aerobic capacity. In addition, the formula for calculating VO2max includes a subject's weight. As weight goes down, VO2max goes up. So, if take a group of sedentary obese subjects and have them do nothing but lift weights, the anaerobic work plus weight loss (assuming they followed a fat loss diet) will result in some aerobic improvement as measured by VO2max. Newbie gains are wonderful! But there will come a point of diminishing returns. There's a reason why endurance athletes don't just lift weights.

Second, cardio training does not need to be hours of long distance work. If you look on Kenneth Jay's website, he has rowing programs that are all based on interval training that meet the criteria for cardio training. Now, if want to run a marathon, you'll need to put the time in on the long runs. As yet, no person seems to have successfully finished an endurance event using nothing but 20 minutes of interval work. But if you're looking for a strong heart interval training is just fine.

Mike... I don't want to wander into the world of semantics any more than you do.... but...
VO2max
I have beat this drum a number of times, but I will risk it again...
It has always been my understanding that VO2max improvement is something that is not easily trained or achievable except in cases where the individual in question is quite young and/or quite detrained. In athletes who are well developed and with a number of years endurance and conditioning training under their belt increasing VO2 max is very limited.

What is possible however, is training to increase the fractional utilization of of VO2MAX. This is very doable in all athletes.

VO2MAX indicates what your maximum potential for processing oxygen is. (Short periods of time usually single digit in nature)
Fractional utilization is the percentage of of VO2MAX you can sustain for longer time periods. (Typically over 30 minutes)

VO2MAX by itself has very little meaning or usefulness...
At least this is how endurance athletes look at it.

My apologies for always (almost) looking at things from an endurance perspective, but that has been my path...
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom