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 don't do pedantic or condescending. Mike you're a smart guy, you knew my point was based on personal observations from my own personal life. If you disagree with me you can..

A. Ignore me.
B. Seek out the root cause of our differences.
C. Respectfully disagree as @Kettlebelephant did.

I Don't disagree with the science based upon the the text book definition. I actually will plug LSD training in at some point as I do see the great value in it. Right now I'm thriving in my training program and don't wish to screw it up.

When we can disagree and look to viewpoints and definitions within the context of our discussion for common ground then we can have a healthy debate (or not).. All I ask is to be given the same respect for myself and my viewpoint as I give to you, the forum members and anybody else in my life for that matter...

Bret, if my post came across as disrespectful, and it was, then I apologize. What I like about this forum is that the discussions are generally civil, and if they do get "messy" then the clean up is easy. At least for me. If I get called out as rude then I will apologize, unless the person I was rude to is a category 5 moron. You're not a category 5 moron. I definitely want to keep this thread going. Things got interesting when @mprevost chimed in.

As for my disagreeing with you, I will echo what @Kettlebelephant said: I'm not sure that I flat out disagreed with you. I completely agree that swings and snatches improve fitness, and many trainees have reported improvement in endurance activities after adding swings and snatches to their training. What I questioned, after reading the works from Kenneth Jay, is the exact mechanism behind these improvements. Perhaps our disagreement involves this mechanism, and that's fine. Hopefully by the time this thread runs its course we may be closer to an answer that satisfies both of us.
 
I recommend you be careful not to confuse these two things - walking and bodyweight strength training. Walking is some cardio and it's also restorative. Strength training can be in whatever form works for you - needn't be bodyweight only.

-S-
Okay, thank you for pointing this out.
 
One thing for everybody to keep in mind is where the adaptations are occurring. When we speak of "aerobic" adaptations we are talking about adaptations that are happening in the heart, the vessels, and the muscles (also hormonal and neural). So the specific adaptations are occurring in the muscles that are being activated and the capillary beds in those muscles. The general adaptations are occurring in the heart primarily (also neural and hormonal).

The heart generally adapts to strength training by thickening the walls of the left ventricle. This is because when we contract a muscle that we are training, we occlude blood flow and increase resistance, the same resistance that the heart has to work against. So the heart is "strength training" as well.

For rhythmic cardio exercise, peripheral resistance is not increased but venous return to the heart is much increased, stretching the ventricles (just like stretching your hamstrings). So the chamber size gets larger because of the stretch but the ventricle walls do not thicken much.

So which of these adaptations do you get with something like A + A snatches? I don't think that has been determined. However, I suspect you get a bit of both. I don't know if the exertion phase of a snatch is long enough to offer a significant increase in peripheral resistance but I suspect that it might offer just a bit. If I had to speculate, I would think that A + A snatches would offer cardiovascular benefits that were closer to rhythmic cardio due to the quick exertion phase and long rest intervals (where you are getting lots of venous return to the heart).

For specific adaptations, the metabolic impact locally (at the muscle and capillary beds) would determine local adaptations. Astrand's Textbook of Work Physiology pointed out decades ago that any effort with a work interval and a rest interval will produce a metabolic effect that is the average intensity of the work and rest interval. For example, if your work to rest ratio is 1 to 1 and your work intensity is 100 and your rest intensity is zero, the metabolic effect would be the same as a continuous effort of that same length at an intensity of 50 (hope that makes sense). In any case, average heart rate would be a good proxy for overall metabolic impact. Someone pointed to Harold's thread where he had a graph showing an average heart rate of 135 BPM for an hour during a snatch workout (I think that is right) . Theoretically this should have the same metabolic impact as a constant, rhythmic effort that produces the same heart rate (i.e., easy jog).

So what good is all of this? The specific adaptations would benefit performance when those specific muscles are used in a similar metabolic challenge. The general adaptations would apply to any activity, regardless of which muscles are used.
 
Slightly off topic- but can one gain a cardio benefit through several efforts throughout the day, or does the cardio effort have to be performed in one (30 minute) period? Let's say I chopped and stacked firewood at an easy pace that kept my heart rate in the 1-2 zone for approx. 15 minutes and then later went for an approx. 15 minute rabbit hunt at dusk where I moved fast enough for my heart rate to stay in the 1-2 zone? Allright, that's actually what I did yesterday......but my hunt was actually closer to 30 minutes and it involved start/stop movement- but my heart rate was definitely up- I was engaging/neutralizing multiple rabbits...
 
In any case, average heart rate would be a good proxy for overall metabolic impact.

@mprevost I appreciate your post above and it has some good explanations. But one part that seems to be missing is the adaptation in regard to muscle fiber types. LSD type aerobic activity like MAF running develops slow-twitch muscle fiber, which tends to be aerobic. Hard/fast/power or strength work like Harald's A+A snatches develops fast-twitch muscle fiber, which tends to be glycolytic. This seems to be one aspect that would negate the "averaging" effect that you describe. Can you comment on how that fits in?
 
Slightly off topic- but can one gain a cardio benefit through several efforts throughout the day, or does the cardio effort have to be performed in one (30 minute) period? Let's say I chopped and stacked firewood at an easy pace that kept my heart rate in the 1-2 zone for approx. 15 minutes and then later went for an approx. 15 minute rabbit hunt at dusk where I moved fast enough for my heart rate to stay in the 1-2 zone? Allright, that's actually what I did yesterday......but my hunt was actually closer to 30 minutes and it involved start/stop movement- but my heart rate was definitely up- I was engaging/neutralizing multiple rabbits...
@mprevost @KIWI5 poses an interesting question as well... what are your thoughts on this.
Thanks,
 
Bret, if my post came across as disrespectful, and it was, then I apologize. What I like about this forum is that the discussions are generally civil, and if they do get "messy" then the clean up is easy. At least for me. If I get called out as rude then I will apologize, unless the person I was rude to is a category 5 moron. You're not a category 5 moron. I definitely want to keep this thread going. Things got interesting when @mprevost chimed in.

As for my disagreeing with you, I will echo what @Kettlebelephant said: I'm not sure that I flat out disagreed with you. I completely agree that swings and snatches improve fitness, and many trainees have reported improvement in endurance activities after adding swings and snatches to their training. What I questioned, after reading the works from Kenneth Jay, is the exact mechanism behind these improvements. Perhaps our disagreement involves this mechanism, and that's fine. Hopefully by the time this thread runs its course we may be closer to an answer that satisfies both of us.

@MikeTheBear You're a man of integrity. I fully accept your apology. Much respect.

I think you're right on the cause of our disagreement, if there really was one..

I've never participated in a forum before and have avoided social media like the plague. My kids set up a FB page for me so they could play some farming video game at the time. I've looked at it a few times but know nothing about it.
It's been fun and interesting participating on this forum. I'm still learning though. I've learned alot already as this forum is packed with people who are much more advanced in KB training, experience and education than I am.

Overall it's kinda cool to see like minded people sharing thoughts, experiences on strength training and much more. As Pavel says, 'power to you' my friend.
 
@mprevost I appreciate your post above and it has some good explanations. But one part that seems to be missing is the adaptation in regard to muscle fiber types. LSD type aerobic activity like MAF running develops slow-twitch muscle fiber, which tends to be aerobic. Hard/fast/power or strength work like Harald's A+A snatches develops fast-twitch muscle fiber, which tends to be glycolytic. This seems to be one aspect that would negate the "averaging" effect that you describe. Can you comment on how that fits in?

Hi Anna. Great insight. You are right. But the hard/fast/power swings also recruit the slow twitch fibers. But it does not matter much. All fibers that are recruited will see a shift in properties towards being more "slow twitch." The fast twitch (IIx) fibers will begin to shift towards intermediate (IIa) and the slow twitch will become even more oxidative. But you are correct that this does negate the "averaging" effect to some extent, but not completely.
 
@mprevost @KIWI5 poses an interesting question as well... what are your thoughts on this.
Thanks,

This is from my run guide (at mikeprevost.com). It is related to the question. The answer has to do with steady state. Once you hit steady state, your physiology is relatively constant.

Going Long: why it is ok to break up your long run

When we start to run it takes time for your heart rate, respiration, and metabolism to gear up. If you use a heart rate monitor you see this every time you training. The same thing happens when you shift gears while training. If you are doing a tempo session, for example 5 minutes easy - 10 minutes tempo, it will take 1-2 minutes for your heart rate to settle at the new intensity when you make the shift from "easy" to "tempo.". This is called reaching steady state at the new intensity. It turns out that at some run intensities you can reach a steady state, where lactate no longer increases and heart rate remains relatively stable (although a small amount of heart rate drift occurs). Let's take a look at a concept called maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) to explain this concept in more detail.

upload_2018-5-10_8-24-33.png

The graph shows notional data during a typical maximal lactate steady state test. This is representative of the kind of data I have seen in the lab dozens of times. A typical test would consist of several stages. Each stage lasts 30 minutes and we do only one stage per testing session. We have the athlete run at a steady pace and measure blood lactate levels every 3 minutes. We start at 4 miles per hour, and increase by 1 mile per hour each session. We might get a graph like the one above. What you can see from this graph is that at each speed the subject reaches a steady state, although at higher and higher lactate levels, until 9 miles per hour. At 9 miles per hour, the subject cannot maintain a steady state and lactate continues to climb, despite the speed staying the same throughout the test. However, at 8 miles per hour, the subject reached a steady state, with lactate stabilizing around 3 mmol/l, even after 30 minutes of running. In this case, the subjects maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) occurred at 8 miles per hour. For most people, MLSS pace is sustainable anywhere from 30 minutes to one hour. If you look at a person's physiology (heart rate, lactate, respiration etc..) at 5 minutes, 10 minutes, or 25 minutes into a run at MLSS, there is very little difference. Think about what this means in terms of splitting a run that is slower than MLSS. It takes 3-4 minutes to hit steady state. So 5 minutes into a run or 40 minutes into a run, physiology is going to look very similar. So what is the difference between 2 X 10 minutes at MLSS or simply 20 minutes straight at MLSS pace? Not much. Because physiologically, most of it is spent at steady state in both cases.


MLSS is a zone 4 effort. Long runs are typically run at a zone 2 effort (refer to the training zones chart shown earlier). Zone 2 is well below MLSS. So the entire run is going to be run in a relatively steady state. For our run subject in the chart above, this might be at 5-6 miles per hour. Heart rate would increase very little during the run and lactate would be steady at approximately 2 mmol/l. Your physiology is not going to be much different 5 minutes into a zone 2 effort run vs 1 hour into the run. So, what is the difference between doing a 2 hour run vs 1 hour run in the morning and 1 hour run in the evening of you are running in zone 2? Again, not much.


This also explains why during Base of a periodized run program that it does not matter much how you structure your runs. 3 runs of 10 miles have about the same fitness impact of 5 runs of 6 miles when all of your running is zone 2.


More and more ultra-runners and marathoners are splitting their long runs and are finding that they recover better and fitness is not negatively impacted. For example, rather than doing a 30 mile run on Saturday, an ultra-runner might do 10 on Saturday and 20 on Sunday. Or 10 on Saturday, 10 on Sunday morning and 10 on Sunday evening. In each case, the runner accumulated 30 miles of running on the weekend. The fitness building impact of those 3 different options is very similar.


Before we completely throw out long runs, it is important to state that long runs do have their place. They are important for mental toughness training, for trying out race strategies, and to build confidence and check pacing strategies. However, because of what we discussed so far, you don't need many of them.
 
@mprevost
This was my understanding (more or less) as well.
Thanks so much for the detailed explanation.

And yes the 'long run' certainly has its purposes...

Thanks again...
 
Good stuff, @mprevost. One data point, for what it's worth - back when I used to run regularly, I did the Philly half-marathon a few years in a row, and I set my best time the year I stopped at every water stop, which was about every two miles. Not a long stop, and in the conversation here, not long enough to really lower my heart rate or experience other changes. It just felt nice to stop, drink my cup of water calmly, and head out again. Perhaps a 30-second stop every 2 miles.

-S-
 
Good stuff, @mprevost. One data point, for what it's worth - back when I used to run regularly, I did the Philly half-marathon a few years in a row, and I set my best time the year I stopped at every water stop, which was about every two miles. Not a long stop, and in the conversation here, not long enough to really lower my heart rate or experience other changes. It just felt nice to stop, drink my cup of water calmly, and head out again. Perhaps a 30-second stop every 2 miles.

-S-

When I was training for Ironman, that is how I did my long runs (in Florida, July-August).
 
@mprevost - great stuff, thank you for the explanations!

My PT test was this week and I've been thinking about how to drop from 16:00 to 15:30 by the next test in October. I'm literally running the fastest I ever have but I also know I've got a lot of room to improve further.

I've read your Navy-PRT guide and am going to rotate my runs according to your three tools of Steady pace, Tempo, VO2Max intervals. Training for the 2 mile event I don't feel like I've done any zone 2. It's all been zone 3-4 with occasional VO2Max intervals.

From what you are saying and what I read online, it looks like I should focus on building zone 2 volume for my underlying aerobic fitness as I'm almost always running anaerobically. But it feels so slow and it feels like wasting time/going backwards. Now that I've got a 5 month time frame how do I shift my training or do I just repeat your guide?

Also, does zone 2 cardio in other activities transfer? I'm looking at getting a rower or stationary bike when I PCS to Oklahoma next month so I can do 30-40min, zone 2 at-home cardio while my wife watches TV in the evening. I know I can't stop running altogether but I want to maybe do 60%+ of my zone 2 training at home rather than jogging slow on my own for hours.

What would you recommend?
 
No, have not. Heavier bell would have gotten the heart rate higher but would not have been sustainable for long. If I want to keep my heart rate in zone 2 for an hour, I can't do that with kettlebell swings or snatches. But I can easily do that with running.

What about swings with empty hands? I have seen video where Steve Maxwell is doing Amosov squats for cardio, but I have no idea how long he kept it up.

Writing this I'm wondering how long I could do either of these compared to loping along at an easy pace.

Great discussion, I have to go back and read it all a second time.
 
@mprevost
Quite a surprising amount of respectable long run results have been done with a 10:1 strategy (run 10 mis, walk for 1 min). That is a tried and true strategy... any ideas why that (and your’s and Steve’s way) works? Pure mental, or are there physiological factors (like muscle relaxation or so?)
 
What about swings with empty hands?

I'm not sure if this means that you would literally do swings with nothing in your hand, but you do not need to go to that extreme. I again reference Kenneth Jay, but this time it's his Viking Warrior Conditioning protocol. When KJ came out with his Cardio Code many thought that his VWC was no longer valid and they were upset that they spent money on something that "no longer worked." I would say that people who made this statement either did not read the book or have very poor reading comprehension skills. Nothing in the Cardio Code contradicts VWC. VWC works because the protocol has you do snatches at a fast pace using a kettlebell that is light enough so that you do not generate muscle tension that would cause blood occlusion which would cause the workout to be more towards the powerlifter side of the continuum. KJ did note in the Cardio Code that the VWC workout is not quite the same as a long steady-state run, but it is closer to the steady-state/marathon run side of the continuum. However, for those who absolutely do not like any form of traditional cardio and prefer all kettlebell all the time, VWC is sufficient to produce the positive cardiovascular changes that come from easy steady-state work. Also, as others here have mentioned, if you actually want to train for an endurance event, then you need to do that endurance event to condition your muscles and your mind. Doing only VWC to train for a marathon means very unhappy legs on race day.
 
@ MikeTheBear,
lets say I have bad heel spurs or some other condition that makes zone 2 work via locomotion a no starter, and I have no rowing machine. I'm not sure I could do unloaded swings or Amosov squats for 45 + minutes, but I'm positive I couldn't do them with a load of any consequence.

I guess as an individual I would just have to give it a try - if after 10 minutes my RPE doesn't increase I'd have answered my own question.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom