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.)
As I understand - and I hope others can fill in some of the details - Slow steady exercise improves the volume that the heart pumps and hiit type stuff improves the force of the heart's contraction. Your training can target one adaptation or the other but you can't really train both at the same time, at least not very well. So if you want to improve both qualities, you have to plan your training accordingly.
 
Do swings provide a cardiovascular adaption? (semantics alert!) Of course they do. Do swings 'qualify' for cardio? Depending on the 'goal' - simple answer is 'YES'. Removing the 'high end' performance athlete from the equation, and looking at this from a 'better than nothing' angle (which applies to a huge number of people who decide to exercise), swings are an excellent way to improve one's cardiovascular condition. I believe that this is pretty soundly proven- at least so far... If someone can direct me towards data that disproves the positive cardiovascular benefit of KB swinging- please do so. I believe this is one of the theories of S&S- two movements that provided all the strength and conditioning (somewhere in there are cardio benefits I'm quite sure!) the average person required. I go back to the 'better than nothing'- swings are an outstanding 'stand alone' exercise for GPP. Are you a Spartan racer? Better do some focused endurance training. And so on- your goal dictates the level of endurance training you require. From my experience- regular KB swinging has vastly improved my ability to chop wood for lengthy periods of time and my one hour lawn mowing sessions have become far easier. Both of these activities go in excess of 30 minutes-so are well into the cardio realm. Maybe I'm the only one who has experienced the 'what the heck effect'?
 
Last edited:
After reading thru this thread again my head is starting to hurt. I'm not an expert on any of this and I can see the differing viewpoints..

I'm confused because..

I don't train for it but can bike for 2 hours (or more) at a good pace without issue, same for any other 'cardio' tasks I perform. I'm not saying I can run for 6 hrs straight but haven't tried.

I can train martial art until muscle fatigue takes me out.. Not a cardio failure (as in not conditioned enough)

I can hit KB training hard using GT or AGT until again muscle fatigue stops me..

I can run a snatch test pretty much any time with my test bell..

I don't do steady state cardio because as I understand it A+A swings or snatches are not in the same category. Considering all I can do and after reading this thread it seems I'm somehow missing out on the 'correct' cardio and am somehow lacking. Not long ago I walked 7 miles with no issues or even soreness afterwards. No great feat but it's not insignificant either.

I don't expect to be able to run a marathon but for the things I do I'm not sure how much 'better' my cardio conditioning can be.

Am I missing something here?
 
I just picked up my well thumbed copy of S&S- page 69. General endurance is discussed in good detail and in particular, how swings assist in this fitness component. I guarantee you- improved 'cardio' is involved. In fact- for the doubters- try just doing swings for two months. You might try the S&S program - but just do the swings. Report back.
 
Maybe I'm the only one who has experienced the 'what the heck effect'?

I don't know if anyone has actually tried to explain what goes on with the what the heck effect. I think it's one of these "just enjoy it and don't question it" kind of things. I have no doubt that the what the heck effect is real. None at all. However, I think the WTH effect is more than just improvements in aerobic capacity. Rather, it is several physical qualities, with aerobic capacity included, that create a confluence of really good physical adaptations, many of which the trainee is experiencing for the first time.

I guarantee you- improved 'cardio' is involved. In fact- for the doubters- try just doing swings for two months.

I suppose I should have made this clear from the beginning, but I never had any doubts that doing kettlebell swings will improve aerobic fitness. However, this is accomplished by several factors - we're back to the WTH effect. What are these factors? Here is my hypothesis:

Improved anaerobic capacity benefits the aerobic energy system. Interesting article here: Anaerobic Development Is Key To Running Speed | Competitor.com

Training your muscles to work together. For someone coming from a "bodybuilding" background that focused on individual muscles and training with machines, swings are going to be a radically different training stimulus. Swings require the muscles to work together. This improves intramuscular coordination. Studies have shown that if you take a distance runner and put that runner a proper weight training program (not bodybuilding stuff), the result will be an improvement in running economy. I don't know if "intramuscular coordination" is the same as "running economy" (or "economy" in any endurance sport for that matter), but I would imagine they are related. How important is running economy to a distance runner? According to this article, it can be a better predictor of running performance VO2max: Interesting article here: Factors affecting running economy in trained distance runners. - PubMed - NCBI

Fat loss: This was a huge selling point for kettlebells, especially in the beginning. For those of us familiar with that "other company," who can forget that memorable Pavel-ism: "Kettlebells will hack the fat off your meat without the dishonor of dieting or aerobics!" Since then we've realize that we do need to suffer the dishonor of dieting to lose fat, but aerobics are not necessary for fat loss. Many KBers notice fat loss, sometimes very significant fat loss. How important is fat loss on VO2max? It's huge. The following quote is from this article: Is VO2max Proportional to Weight?

"[R]elative VO2max is actually inversely proportional to fat mass -- that is, the more body fat you have, the lower your relative VO2max. In fact, fat mass is a better predictor of relative VO2max than exercise performance (how far/fast you go in the VO2max test)!"

I would argue that a combination of the above improvements in physical qualities will result in improvements in an endurance activity. Now, if you ask the average person if an improved time in a 5K race, for example, means an improvement in "cardio" they would likely answer "yes." However, improvements in the above factors are not direct improvements in heart function - they are improvements in other factors that make up a good endurance athlete. In short, it's the WTH effect.

But I now understand what you meant by "generally speaking." Although I'm not in a scientific field I've always liked science, especially when it concerns human physiology (I joke that had it not been for my dislike of chemistry I would have gone to medical school instead of law school). I find the stuff I wrote about above absolutely fascinating. The "why" fascinates me. But for your average person who may want to improve his or her 5K time, they could care less about why something works, they just want to know how to get there. Take a recreational runner who has never done any type of weight training, who is perhaps a bit overweight (we're talking average Joe and Jane recreational runners here, and yes, some are bit overweight), and tell them to add S&S to their training, and I have no doubt their 5K time will improve. In fact I would guarantee it. So you are @KIWI5 that "generally speaking," KB swings will improve cardio even though, from a strictly scientific perspective, KB swings may not directly improve cardiac function.

Does this make sense?
 
Isn't there some cardiac adaptation and strengthening going on from consistent swings in S&S? I get the point of more efficient muscle and neural coordination and fat loss but I can't wrap my head around not improving cardiac performance.

Using myself as a test subject I did not lose fat and already had huge amounts of muscle and neural coordination from hard style martial arts practice for 30 yrs. After doing S&S my 'cardiac' fitness improved dramatically, as in having an easier time doing the same things I did before. How is this possible without looking at the muscle pumping my blood around getting stronger? Not trying to argue and would sincerely like to understand the rationale.

If it's scientific semantics not squaring with my own real world results then I guess I'll have to try and understand why... AhhhhhROFL my head
 
Not sure if there is a need to classify swings as cardio or non-cardio. Do they help you achieve your goal? Then that is all that matters.

One of my goals is to be able to run 5 km in 25-26 mins without spending hours running every week. S&S, being the only regular exercise I get, seems to have enough of a cardio component, as I have only run 6 times last year, and twice so far this year, and met this goal.

Edit: also maintaining a resting heartbeat of 53-57, which is sufficient for me.
 
My experience: from untrained, kettlebell work (S&S specifically) got me from huffing and puffing walking up stairs, to barely a pulse rise and no elevated breathing for a regular waking pace. I hate running (jogging) so I don’t know the carryover there, but for me kettlebell swings restored (and maintain) what I would consider a normal level of cardiovascular fitness.

So I wouldn’t swing instead of run if I wanted to finish a 10k (I do think I could manage a 5k without specific training), but I also wouldn’t go jog or even sprint, if I want to hit the SFG snatch test. So in that sense “cardio” is goal-dependent.
 
So I wouldn’t swing instead of run if I wanted to finish a 10k (I do think I could manage a 5k without specific training), but I also wouldn’t go jog or even sprint, if I want to hit the SFG snatch test. So in that sense “cardio” is goal-dependent.

Well, there we get into definitions and distinctions between "cardio", "endurance", "conditioning", and "performance"... all terms about which we could have similar discussions as this thread. Along those lines, this is intersting reading: Your Conditioning Program Does Not Have to be Sport-Specific | StrongFirst

As far as "are swing cardio?", I think most of the discussion depends if you define cardio as "an excercise whose primary objective is to improve cardiovascular health" vs. "an exercise which, among other things, improves cardiovascular health." Swings probably don't meet the first definition, but I think they meet the second.
 
My experience: from untrained, kettlebell work (S&S specifically) got me from huffing and puffing walking up stairs, to barely a pulse rise and no elevated breathing for a regular waking pace.
You lost a good amount of weight since you began using KBs.
Put on a 20-30lbs weight vest and go up the stairs. I bet your pulse rises and you start to breath heavier again.
Just losing weight will make most things easier on the body which will result in lower HR during the same tasks. That doesn't mean that you improved cardiac function.
Look at it like this, compare how much fuel your car uses with just you in it compared to having your whole family of 5 in it.
It's the same car with the same engine, but it will have to work harder and use up more fuel.
The heart's the same.
Overweight and obese people walk around with constantly elevated HR, yet they usually don't have healthy hearts.
There's more to hearth health and cardiac function than just elevating your HR. @MikeTheBear already explained this.

Using myself as a test subject I did not lose fat and already had huge amounts of muscle and neural coordination from hard style martial arts practice for 30 yrs. After doing S&S my 'cardiac' fitness improved dramatically, as in having an easier time doing the same things I did before. How is this possible without looking at the muscle pumping my blood around getting stronger? Not trying to argue and would sincerely like to understand the rationale.
See the things I wrote above.
IIRC you lost a good amount of weight, too. I think I read that you went from ~220lbs to 190lbs, back to 215lbs and back down to 190lbs again. Is that right?
"having an easier time doing the same things I did before", that's exactly what I describe above. It could simply be by not carrying around so much weight.
I know that you're quite muscular. Muscle is a lot better than fat, because fat is simply dead weight while muscle is useful. Muscle is still weight though and for every pound of muscle you add your heart has to work harder, too.
The extreme examples of this are strongman like Eddie Hall, who was at risk of dying ins his sleep because of all the weight, despite a lot of that weight coming from muscle.

Another explanation could be overall stress.
In other threads you said that you trained in a variety of ways before. Maybe you trained so hard all the time that your stress levels were high. Than you switched to S&S and improved in many fields.
Sometimes less is more.
As an example, I'm a avid follower of Biathlon (cross-country sking + shooting) and a few years ago there were 3 or 4 women who came back from having babys. All of them tremendously improved and when asked how this could happen they said that because of their baby they couldn't spend so much time on training anymore and had to do less while focusing on the basics.
Maybe you experienced something like that aswell.
Or it was a combination of this and the weight loss. Who knows.
The point is there are many explanations for this and not just improved cardiac function.


Overall though I do think that swings improve cardiac function to a certain extent.
IMO the A+A protocols showed just that.
They can't replace steady-state work, but yield many of the same benefits. Will that be enough to count as "cardio"? Like many already said, that's up to you and how you define "cardio".

Why can swings improve cardiac function?
Here's my theory for this.
@MikeTheBear already explained the adaptions on left and right ventricule and why your HR rises during weight training etc.
I think swings play by slightly different rules. The HR increases during weight training stem from the restricted bloodflow which is a result of the contracting muscles.
This doesn't apply to traditional steady-state modalities like running, because the muscle contractions are so brief that they don't restrict blood flow.
Now if you look at the mechanics of a swing it's a hard brief muscle contraction followed by relaxation. That's not too different from running, rowing or cycling.
Your overall body tension is still higher though (think of the tension in the plank position), so you won't be as relaxed as you are during running.
IMO that's why you can have some of the same adaptions, but not all of them, but overall still can increase cardiac function.
 
So are swings as described in the Simple and sinister manual "cardio" ???

I say no.

And it's irrelevant.

The majority of the kettlebell section is about S&S. But there are so many more great programs out there.

Can we talk about those ?
 
Last edited:
So are swings as described in the Simple and sinister manual "cardio" ???
Yes and no.
@Anna C describes it very well:
As far as "are swing cardio?", I think most of the discussion depends if you define cardio as "an excercise whose primary objective is to improve cardiovascular health" vs. "an exercise which, among other things, improves cardiovascular health." Swings probably don't meet the first definition, but I think they meet the second.
The swings in S&S are there to improve power. The "cardio" is a wanted*** by-product, but not the main reason for them.

***The "wanted" is speculation from me, because in older articles on the SF homepage you can see that Pavel was already reasearching into the Strong Endurance and A+A stuff and S&S has some of those principles built into it.
 
You lost a good amount of weight since you began using KBs.
Put on a 20-30lbs weight vest and go up the stairs. I bet your pulse rises and you start to breath heavier again.
Just losing weight will make most things easier on the body which will result in lower HR during the same tasks. That doesn't mean that you improved cardiac function.
Look at it like this, compare how much fuel your car uses with just you in it compared to having your whole family of 5 in it.
It's the same car with the same engine, but it will have to work harder and use up more fuel.
The heart's the same.
Overweight and obese people walk around with constantly elevated HR, yet they usually don't have healthy hearts.
There's more to hearth health and cardiac function than just elevating your HR.
True, good point.

Perhaps your last point is worth exploring more: are there unique/optimal cardiac function benefits to kettlebell swings (or similar kettlebell quick lifts like snatch or double clean) done in an A+A style, relative to other ways of improving cardiac function?
 
@Kettlebelephant Pavel in S&S talks about front line military operators using his system to be ready for anything that pops up. They have to maintain a state of readiness, even in the middle of a desert where temps soar in daytime. I doubt they run much for steady state cardio as it's probably unsafe to do it considering the circumstances of temp extremes and the fact they're in a war zone.

Strength and cardio... That's what S&S delivers. I've posted before my history of doing the program in test mode 4-5 times a week for a year. The strength and cardio benefits for me were undeniable. My weight during the time ranged from 180-185 lbs. I swear I felt like I could walk thru walls and do it all day long.

S&S is diabolical in it's effectiveness and economy. Saying it has no cardio benefit or trying to explain it away is like telling me the sky isn't blue. I have eyes and the sky IS blue.:cool:
 
S&S has done and continues to do wonders for me the longer I stay at it and the better I get at it.

I think I'm seeing more than enough evidence here in this thread from informed participants that I am certainly not getting OPTIMAL heart-health training from S&S. Therefore, being careful to get out and walk or hike a few times a week needs to become part of my routine again to attain my goal of optimal heart health.
 
S&S has done and continues to do wonders for me the longer I stay at it and the better I get at it.

I think I'm seeing more than enough evidence here in this thread from informed participants that I am certainly not getting OPTIMAL heart-health training from S&S. Therefore, being careful to get out and walk or hike a few times a week needs to become part of my routine again to attain my goal of optimal heart health.
I like Mark Sisson's (of "Mark's Daily Apple") adage, paraphrased as: walk a lot, lift heavy things a few times a week, sprint occasionally, use sunscreen, wear a seat belt (don't do stupid risky things), get a full night's sleep, reduce stress, and stick to eating the things on the outside perimeter of supermarket.
 
@Kettlebelephant Pavel in S&S talks about front line military operators using his system to be ready for anything that pops up. They have to maintain a state of readiness, even in the middle of a desert where temps soar in daytime. I doubt they run much for steady state cardio as it's probably unsafe to do it considering the circumstances of temp extremes and the fact they're in a war zone.

Strength and cardio... That's what S&S delivers. I've posted before my history of doing the program in test mode 4-5 times a week for a year. The strength and cardio benefits for me were undeniable. My weight during the time ranged from 180-185 lbs. I swear I felt like I could walk thru walls and do it all day long.

S&S is diabolical in it's effectiveness and economy. Saying it has no cardio benefit or trying to explain it away is like telling me the sky isn't blue. I have eyes and the sky IS blue.:cool:
Doesn't mean that S&S is optimal for heart health though. It may give us power, strength, coordination, balance, including cardio-vascular power for bursts of energy, but this is different from optimal heart-health maintenance. The example given above is some kind of power lifter almost dying in his sleep. S&S is certainly something that approaches more a "heart-healthy" exercise than powerlifting, given that it has more reps for longer periods of time, but it still isn't an exercise keeping the heart pumping at a steady state, but rather makes in peak and valley repeatedly.
 
I like Mark Sisson's (of "Mark's Daily Apple") adage, paraphrased as: walk a lot, lift heavy things a few times a week, sprint occasionally, use sunscreen, wear a seat belt (don't do stupid risky things), get a full night's sleep, reduce stress, and stick to eating the things on the outside perimeter of supermarket.
I'll tell you that I really haven't found anything that can replace long walks in terms of full body medium-level (however I define this I guess, hehehe) strength and conditioning.

I go for a few walks in the week and I reduce my S&S time and find the TGUs much easier to do. I go for a few walks in the week and I find myself stronger, longer-winded and more mobile at judo. I go for a few walks and I feel much more alert, alive, destressed, mentally productive.

I'll add that I think walking is better than running because I can do it longer. I'll run for half and hour but walk for more than double that. This is simply more "time on task" tending to my heart health (and all-body strength, balance and wellbeing).
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom