Kettlebell Aerobic kettlebell strategies

[Anna C]

Wouldn't the real difference (for any specific movement) be dependent on total TUT? If you only train squats in singles or doubles for 6-8 seconds and your swings run out to 30-40 seconds, a set of the squats will rely less on glycolysis and the swings more so.

I believe this is incorrect.

I'm quoting Joel Jamieson here, from a forum thread elsewhere from many years ago, but a quote that I kept: "It's also important to realize that while yes on an individual muscle fiber level the alactic system is only capable of regenerating ATP for 10 seconds, the body is not a single muscle fiber and every fiber in the body is never contracting all at once. When one motor unit or a group of motor unit fatigues and runs out of alactic substrates, there are still other motor units than then come into play while the first group can oxidatively phosophoralated to then fire alactically again. In this way the alactic system can provide energy for much longer than just 10 seconds."

So the rate of fiber recruitment and the amount of recruitment comes into play, not just the Time Under Tension.

In either case it isn't clear that you can selectively train just the fastest fibers, and even they are PCr/Glycolytic Bi fuel capable (all the fast fiber types are). You can train to ensure you hit the fastest fibers but you'll be recruiting everything else to do so.

I also believe this is incorrect, but I'm not sure I understand it well enough to state the case. I think if you do something with increasing intensity, such as an arm wrestling match where you start out with gentle pressure then slowly ramp it up until both sides are maxed out and then one wins, then yes I think you are recruiting all fibers more or less sequentially -- the slow, then the faster, then the fastest (then the fastest fatigue and strength drops off). But when you do something hard and fast, like ballistics, I think you recruit the fastest fibers immediately, more or less bypassing the slower fibers.

Methods of repeat training involving more glycolysis like squats for instance have different benefits as I understand it. Though the energy pathways used are different I'm unclear as to the reason why the CV benefits aren't quite the same. The aerobic 'pumping down' between sets is the same no? Isn't the ATP replenishment mechanism the same regardless of lactate level?

I think this is generally true, yes... but there are more by-products to clear from glycolysis, so the things going on with the blood and energy systems are slightly different. And your point makes me wonder -- if we're doing something like squats, burning glycogen and producting lactate, using the medium fast fibers and not the fastest fibers, are we depleting PCr (the alactic energy) just as much as if we do something like a limit strength move or a ballistic move? I don't know...

I always think about these things on bike rides. Because cycling, unlike running, is not at all a constant LSD type activity. At times you are pedaling with incredibly explosive power just like heavy swings or snatches, at other times sustained efforts like a long set of squats, other times tempo like a fast run, other times easy like a jog or walk. Throughout a ride it's constantly changing. And obviously it's not like the energy systems in the body are flipping switches on and off all that time. In my mind it's all a big blur of effort going on in the body to supply the necessary energy through all of its incredibly flexible pathways, and I tend to think that it's like that during kettlebell or other similar exercises too -- not these neat little categories that we try to put things in. But we certainly can target certain adaptations and emphasize different things with our training, therefore it's useful to try and understand the qualities of the activities which target the adaptations we want.

 

[Bret S.]

In my mind it's all a big blur of effort going on in the body to supply the necessary energy through all of its incredibly flexible pathways, and I tend to think that it's like that during kettlebell or other similar exercises too -- not these neat little categories that we try to put things in.

You have put into words (very well I might add) the reason for the things I'm thinking and doing with regard to kettlebells and aerobic/muscle training strategies. Hence the reason I started this thread. I'm no scholar or pioneer in the field (far from it) but what I do, like you and others, is think about these things and ask questions.
So my main question or focus rather is that if we train our muscles, joints, tendons, CNS etc. in a variety of ways to prepare us for strong life living in all-terrain conditions then why not think in the same terms with respect to the CVS?
I realize the effectiveness and brilliance of A+A style training and that is where the bulk of my future training will lie. However in thinking about our bodies and nature we are designed by our Creator to be very diverse and adaptable, for example a hunter 5000 yrs ago would tap energy systems across the board, anything from walking great distances to all out sprinting, or intervals as he follows and stalks prey, or climbing in steep terrain, or swimming across rivers of freezing cold water etc. The demand possibilities are endless and so is the adaptive capability of the human body.
So this is why I like to train the CVS in many different modes, sort of in the spirit of all-terrain conditioning.

 

[Al Ciampa]

Methods of repeat training involving more glycolysis like squats for instance have different benefits as I understand it. Though the energy pathways used are different I'm unclear as to the reason why the CV benefits aren't quite the same

Let's just accept that it is.

The science is severely lacking, especially so in the fields of nutrition and physical activity. It is almost not even worth including it in the discussion. Moreover, armchair interwebz warriors attempting to understand the already lacking science are only making it murkier.

Probably best to keep the discussion mostly where it is both more completely understandable and where one can actually make change: The practice.

Ahhh, but what do I know...

 

[Anna C]

I realize the effectiveness and brilliance of A+A style training and that is where the bulk of my future training will lie. However in thinking about our bodies and nature we are designed by our Creator to be very diverse and adaptable, for example a hunter 5000 yrs ago would tap energy systems across the board, anything from walking great distances to all out sprinting, or intervals as he follows and stalks prey, or climbing in steep terrain, or swimming across rivers of freezing cold water etc. The demand possibilities are endless and so is the adaptive capability of the human body.

Yes! I agree, with the exception of how we got to be diverse and adaptable... but I certainly agree that we are. And we should probably leave it at that.

 

[offwidth]

I believe this is incorrect.

I'm quoting Joel Jamieson here, from a forum thread elsewhere from many years ago, but a quote that I kept: "It's also important to realize that while yes on an individual muscle fiber level the alactic system is only capable of regenerating ATP for 10 seconds, the body is not a single muscle fiber and every fiber in the body is never contracting all at once. When one motor unit or a group of motor unit fatigues and runs out of alactic substrates, there are still other motor units than then come into play while the first group can oxidatively phosophoralated to then fire alactically again. In this way the alactic system can provide energy for much longer than just 10 seconds."

So the rate of fiber recruitment and the amount of recruitment comes into play, not just the Time Under Tension.



I also believe this is incorrect, but I'm not sure I understand it well enough to state the case. I think if you do something with increasing intensity, such as an arm wrestling match where you start out with gentle pressure then slowly ramp it up until both sides are maxed out and then one wins, then yes I think you are recruiting all fibers more or less sequentially -- the slow, then the faster, then the fastest (then the fastest fatigue and strength drops off). But when you do something hard and fast, like ballistics, I think you recruit the fastest fibers immediately, more or less bypassing the slower fibers.



I think this is generally true, yes... but there are more by-products to clear from glycolysis, so the things going on with the blood and energy systems are slightly different. And your point makes me wonder -- if we're doing something like squats, burning glycogen and producting lactate, using the medium fast fibers and not the fastest fibers, are we depleting PCr (the alactic energy) just as much as if we do something like a limit strength move or a ballistic move? I don't know...

I always think about these things on bike rides. Because cycling, unlike running, is not at all a constant LSD type activity. At times you are pedaling with incredibly explosive power just like heavy swings or snatches, at other times sustained efforts like a long set of squats, other times tempo like a fast run, other times easy like a jog or walk. Throughout a ride it's constantly changing. And obviously it's not like the energy systems in the body are flipping switches on and off all that time. In my mind it's all a big blur of effort going on in the body to supply the necessary energy through all of its incredibly flexible pathways, and I tend to think that it's like that during kettlebell or other similar exercises too -- not these neat little categories that we try to put things in. But we certainly can target certain adaptations and emphasize different things with our training, therefore it's useful to try and understand the qualities of the activities which target the adaptations we want.

Anna,
Agreed... mostly except the bit about running and cycling. They can both be equally LED or not depending upon the conditions (terrain mostly) and how you are engaging. It all depends on how you do it.

I can certainly do a LED ride if the terrain allows, and if I chose to. In my world that practically never happens because of terrain, and the jamokes I ride with...

Likewise if I tackle an aggressive trail run, there is no way it is ever going to be LED...

 

[rickyw]

But when you do something hard and fast, like ballistics, I think you recruit the fastest fibers immediately, more or less bypassing the slower fibers.

I would love to see some literature on this. I’ve only been taught fast fibers recruit after slow fibers. But that was in the context of grinds(as you explain), if I remember correctly.

 

[North Coast Miller]

I would love to see some literature on this. I’ve only been taught fast fibers recruit after slow fibers. But that was in the context of grinds(as you explain), if I remember correctly.

It is my understanding the only exception to this is involuntary or reflexive movements.

 

[Anna C]

Did a little reading... not sure it rises to the level of "literature" but is interesting and somewhat related.

Understanding Muscle Fiber Type

"It normally takes anywhere from .4-.6 seconds for the nervous system to call on all the available muscle motor units to contract. This is the same length of time it takes to demonstrate max strength or apply maximum force. However, it takes only .2 seconds to perform something like a vertical jump. So the main determining factor is how many of ALL the available muscle motor units one can get turned on in .2 seconds and not necessarily how much fast twitch fiber one has. Therefore, if one lacks fast twitch fiber but also has a very efficient nervous system capable of recruiting nearly all the FT fiber they do have, they will tend to have superior performance in comparison to someone with a less efficient nervous system and lots of fast twitch fiber."

This reference says that it takes slow-twitch 100 milliseconds to contract. So, in a super fast movement (ballistics), maybe they are not contributing much... Don't know if there's any way to quantify it.

 

[Anna C]

Agreed... mostly except the bit about running and cycling. They can both be equally LED or not depending upon the conditions (terrain mostly) and how you are engaging. It all depends on how you do it.

Yes, quite true, @offwidth ... I am biased by the type of running and cycling I usually do. Almost all of my running is at one constant, boring speed, though I have done some that varies a lot (as you said, trail running). And almost all of my cycling is at varying speed and effort, though I have done some that is very steady and modulated, when conditions allow; for example, riding on rollers. Good points...

 

[Bret S.]

Let's just accept that it is.

The science is severely lacking, especially so in the fields of nutrition and physical activity. It is almost not even worth including it in the discussion. Moreover, armchair interwebz warriors attempting to understand the already lacking science are only making it murkier.

Probably best to keep the discussion mostly where it is both more completely understandable and where one can actually make change: The practice.

Ahhh, but what do I know...

With all due respect, what is the basis for A+A and its methods if my question is at the heart of the theory behind it, and it's almost not worth including in the discussion? If it's not 'solidly proven' scientifically how did the whole concept come about?
I'm willing to put my body to the test with a sound theory and I'm not doubting the effectiveness of A+A but I do reserve the right to ask questions. If the answer isn't available to the scientists involved then where does one go from there?
I have much faith in the concepts developed at SF but will not blindly follow anything without being able to stand back and ask 'where are we with this?' In 10 years time much more will be known scientifically and may in fact reverse current theory, unlikely but possible.
I will continue to attempt understanding as it's what free thinking men do. If I'm asked to shut down my inquiry in the public forum as a representative of SF I'll comply and continue privately.
Obviously I have a lot to learn and that's what I'm attempting to do here, not as an 'interwebz warrior' but as an asker of sincere questions. What is the 'practice' if not an application of theory. Trust but verify.. if the answer isn't there I'm left only with my own gut feeling and faith in the people leading me. That's the best I can do. I'm not doubting the effectiveness of A+A and will continue happily in the protocol using snatches and swings as the base movements.

 

[rickyw]

"It normally takes anywhere from .4-.6 seconds for the nervous system to call on all the available muscle motor units to contract. This is the same length of time it takes to demonstrate max strength or apply maximum force. However, it takes only .2 seconds to perform something like a vertical jump. So the main determining factor is how many of ALL the available muscle motor units one can get turned on in .2 seconds and not necessarily how much fast twitch fiber one has. Therefore, if one lacks fast twitch fiber but also has a very efficient nervous system capable of recruiting nearly all the FT fiber they do have, they will tend to have superior performance in comparison to someone with a less efficient nervous system and lots of fast twitch fiber."

This reference says that it takes slow-twitch 100 milliseconds to contract. So, in a super fast movement (ballistics), maybe they are not contributing much... Don't know if there's any way to quantify it.

Yet, 100 milliseconds is only .1 second. So, the slow twitch have plenty of time to prepare for a vertical jump, if indeed a vertical jump only takes .2 seconds, as he claims.

I don't see it possible for an O lifter to only be using his fast twitch fibers to lift hundreds of pounds into a clean or snatch. The slow twitch must also be recruited, or he would not be lifting nearly as much. Nor would his postural muscles support the load.

In kettlebell ballistics would the same principle apply? I'm asking. I personally would think so.

 

[Anna C]

Yet, 100 milliseconds is only .1 second. So, the slow twitch have plenty of time to prepare for a vertical jump, if indeed a vertical jump only takes .2 seconds, as he claims.

I don't see it possible for an O lifter to only be using his fast twitch fibers to lift hundreds of pounds into a clean or snatch. The slow twitch must also be recruited, or he would not be lifting nearly as much. Nor would his postural muscles support the load.

In kettlebell ballistics would the same principle apply? I'm asking. I personally would think so.

Good point, although if you took the milliseconds of greatest force production in the vertical jump, do the slow fibers really have time to be maximally recruited for the effort? It's not like they anticipate the need and start the 100 milisecond clock in time to join the effort... they only get the "contract" signal at jump time.

Agree on the O lifter, I'm sure the slow fibers are a huge part of the overall effort. And yes, postural muscles are mosly slow twitch from what I understand. I looked for a list of percentage of slow vs. fast twitch in various muscles but I didn't find one.

Maybe in O lifting and kettlebell ballistics, the different muscle fibers are working for different parts of the movement? I'm sure this is far too simplified to be real, but just as an example, maybe in a heavy kettlebell swing, the standing plank is more slow-twitch fiber, and the miliseconds of highest force production on the upswing is mostly fast-twitch?

So let's take the hamstrings, glutes, and quads, in a kettlebell swing or snatch -- would you say that the use of fast-twich fiber in these muscles while contracted automatically means that all of their slow-twitch fiber is already contracted?

Obviously I have a lot to learn and that's what I'm attempting to do here

Here, here. Me too.

 

[Al Ciampa]

With all due respect, what is the basis for A+A and its methods if my question is at the heart of the theory behind it, and it's almost not worth including in the discussion? If it's not 'solidly proven' scientifically how did the whole concept come about?

Educational guessing, then testing. The science in support is basic textbook physiology and biochemistry.

You're less concerned about the science and more concerned about what you should do. What you should do is dictated by other user experience, not science. It will never be solidly proven; but it is effective for a good number of folks. That said, it does have a small attrition rate that I don't ignore.

I'm willing to put my body to the test with a sound theory and I'm not doubting the effectiveness of A+A but I do reserve the right to ask questions. If the answer isn't available to the scientists involved then where does one go from there?

No one is asking you to test this; and forums do not owe you answers. Not being a dick, this is just the truth.

Moreover, and more importantly, if you're running several different types of sessions each week, as you seem to be, you're effectively not testing or using any one protocol. Again, the answers for users do not come out of science, they come out of experience and experimentation. A+A has already been worked out for you.

I have much faith in the concepts developed at SF but will not blindly follow anything without being able to stand back and ask 'where are we with this?' In 10 years time much more will be known scientifically and may in fact reverse current theory, unlikely but possible.

You have been blindly following this because you're still asking basic questions. This is fine, and the way it is... it is ok to act without an understanding of the theory. If the science does change, it will not change the fact that A+A is effective across a diverse population.

Are you able to see the difference between science and practice, and which one we should all be more concered with?

Obviously I have a lot to learn and that's what I'm attempting to do here, not as an 'interwebz warrior' but as an asker of sincere questions.

That wasn't a zing at you, and I apologize if it offended you. I've been a part of this forum since its inception and so watched it evolve into what it is now. Along the way, there are/were many characters that show up, as do in most forums, I assume.

To my point, there is a healthy amount of scientifc inquiry that I think satisfies our curiosity. It should be secondary to discussion about the experience and results.

Then, there is the just useless slinging back and forth of scientific papers in forum arguments to support this or that assertion. The latter is what I gripe about and what my response was targeting. I was using your post as a way to generally whine about paper slinging, so again, apologies if you took it different from how I meant it.

I honestly think you have a healthy curiosity and are not paralyzed by the analysis.

What is the 'practice' if not an application of theory.

The theory changes with every "breakthrough". Once found, the practice remains constant.

I'm not doubting the effectiveness of A+A and will continue happily in the protocol using snatches and swings as the base movements.

Based on what you reported, you don't seem to be using the A+A protocol; you're sort of using the general A+A structure for a few sessions each week. It's only important in the case that you make assertions concerning your experience with A+A. I.e., if you were testing this protocol, I couldn't use your testimony for or against the efficacy of A+A.

 

[Harald Motz]

Though the energy pathways used are different I'm unclear as to the reason why the CV benefits aren't quite the same. The aerobic 'pumping down' between sets is the same no? Isn't the ATP replenishment mechanism the same regardless of lactate level?

Kenneth Jay in his 'cardio code' explains it quite well and to a great degree his whole theory builds upon exactly that high heart rates do not equal cardiovascular improvement. With weights the higher they are and the more prolonged the isometric contraction is, the more the blood vessels get constricted. with squats, there is lots of tension isometrically in some muscles, other muscles move and in general there is lots of prolonged pressure in the abdomen. blood flow to the heart is constricted, the heart walls can not expand properly per se because of the tension and the reduced blood flow, the working squatting muscles pledge for oxygen and "waste deposit", and the heart has nothing else to do, to beat faster and faster against lots of tension. This makes the heart walls thicker long term and the wall grows outward and inward and the chamber actually gets smaller over time and the heart walls getting less pliable over time.

Jays VWC are protocols to use the cyclical nature of the snatch that has more of tense-relaxation cycles with relatively light weights. I used it years ago myself for two or three months. I liked it for some of the reasons mentioned (I remember the lowering of resting heart rate too, that was something I experienced with the first two six week "Lazy Endurance" swing protocols from Al also. They were every minute on the minute, and my heart rates climbed with prolonged sessions. I used 50kg in sets of five then. Lowering of resting heart rate I experienced too, when I rode with my racing bike the peaks and valeys in our uplands in spring to autumn 20-10 years ago)
I quitted VWC because to a great degree with always shredded hands as I use chalk almost every time I lift (a thing I would never question for myself), and in summer, you know…

I eventually got "Cardio Code" and habe expected something different than VWC. Different are the means as he explains: for optimal cardiovascular development you need to engage in traditional cardio events: row, bike, run, ski, swim. events with the least pressurization and fast tense-relaxation cycles where blood flow has the least obstruction, the heart can be filled to its capacity and blood can get to the capillaries (and build over time some) to supply the muscles with oxygen and remove "waste products". These activities yield with maximal heart rates maximal O2 consumption which can be measured. In his research Jay states that VWC comes close, but is not optimal in nthat regard.

Out of my scrappy memory Jay does kind of this: first, you have to establish your baseline of your current VO2 max. Wingate test for the bike, 2000m all out on the rower, Cooper 12min run test for run. According to these numbers he outlines specific determined interval protocols which are... I would consider hard to very hard intervals. So in effort it is in VWC tradition. His book is filled with science and references to it, where he summarizes them. My impression is, that this could be stuff for really advanced population. I am not. He is very big on rowing and running. Thus when running according to some protocols that is delicate, as all out sprinting, be it only for very short distance is cool, but only so long. Rowing, Skiing, Biking makes more sense to me here. And he advices constant retesting, to adapt the protocols accordingly.

Here I was kind of disappointed: as I was already into Al's "stuff" I expected data, research on all this aerobic base building paradigm. Sure Kenneth advises slow endurance work also, but when I remember correctly as a means to just a bit of recovery from his stuff. He seems to be about maximizing VO2 max as like in VWC with the means to get the hr to maximal heart rates via High Intensity Interval Training.

For me as a kind of unintentional long term practitioner it is to advanced, and I was already into A+A. In the past I loved and enjoyed S&S which attracted me to the simple and followable instructions. The effectiveness of a pull and a press, a grind and a ballistic I am enjoying still today. This led me eventually to SF.

In January 2016 I started my A+A journey in a group under Al's guidance. That is exactly what he did and does: he guides a bit here and there, and definitely when you ask. With A+A he gives a handful of guidelines which are not written in stone. Much room for autoregulation. What I do with my A+A work is to play with these guidelines, the frequency, number of repeats, number of reps, finding my pace with my aerobic work which feels right to me (mostly much lower than MAF). Al never said you have to do it this and exactly that, but knows that everyone plays more or less his or her own game. And if A+A works I can not definitely say I am still exploring, but I am pleasantly surprised, that I still snatch using more or less this as my workhorse. After 32 months doing it, it just seems sustainable to me. If it works I don't know, but it has surely some effects.

 

[North Coast Miller]

So let's take the hamstrings, glutes, and quads, in a kettlebell swing or snatch -- would you say that the use of fast-twich fiber in these muscles while contracted automatically means that all of their slow-twitch fiber is already contracted?

I'd have to say a goodly % of them is, and what's more they likely contribute increasing amounts as the bell ascends.

You have to figure if the recruitment is partial for slow twitch and likely (certainly) is also true for some of the fast twitch as its not a maximal effort. Once the bell develops momentum the % of fast twitch fibers will begin to drop off per the force velocity relationship. The slow twitch likely stay in the game longer and at higher % than the fast twitch after the initial blast, maybe even in increasing absolute % .

If this were not true to some extent, ballistics would be the best way to build mass by selectively recruiting the greatest growth potential IIb fibers. Yet there is no contest comparing swings to backsquats or swings to DL in this role, even with very heavy swings.

Relative to some of the above, it really doesn't matter if you aren't worried about anything more than concept and practice. You get the adaptations you train for as long as you do so using cause and effect. It only begins to matter if you want to imply metabolic cause and effect and are attempting to isolate energy pathways to do so.

Edit to add: type IIa are plenty fast enough to power most explosive effort - even among powerlifters the % of type IIb shrinks relative to the general population. That is it stays constant or improves a little and the type I and IIa both get larger in size, shrinking the relative % of IIb.

This is an extremely consistent outcome among resistance trained athletes no matter the methodology.

 

[Steve W.]

It is a truism that the plural of anecdote is not "data," but empirical observation is a key part of the scientific method, so science and practice are more intertwined than oppositional.

To Al's point, we can make observations about cause and effect and reach conclusions, even if the mechanism in between is a black box. There's that Taleb line (quoted by Pavel in S&S) about how explanations change, but experience remains the same. To a large degree, I don't care what goes on in the box, but that is not necessarily an unscientific attitude.

For instance, I conclude that OS is beneficial even though I am highly skeptical of Tim Anderson's explanation/theory of why (and I love Tim, BTW).

Some practice is developed on the basis of a theory about the mechanism of action, and some is more strictly based on empirical observation. Sometimes the theory comes first, and sometimes the theory has to catch up afterwards.

It's not either/or, hence my signature line.

@Bret S., keep on working, observing, and asking questions. YOU have a theory about training, based on knowledge and belief:

if we train our muscles, joints, tendons, CNS etc. in a variety of ways to prepare us for strong life living in all-terrain conditions then why not think in the same terms with respect to the CVS?

You are basing your practice on that theory, and you are observing the results as they occur. I don't think anyone is criticizing you or telling you to do otherwise.

 

[rickyw]

@North Coast Miller and @Anna C ,

I think we have some answers here:

"Low force muscle actions activate only a few motor units; a higher force requirement progressively enlists more motor units. Motor unit recruitment describes adding motor units to increase muscle force. As muscle force requirements increase, progressively larger axons recruit the required motor neurons. This exemplifies the size principle--an anatomic basis for the orderly recruitment of specific motor units to produce smooth muscle action.

"All of the motor units in a muscle do not fire at the same time. If they did, it would be virtually impossible to control muscle force output. Consider the tremendous gradation of forces and speeds that muscles generate. When lifting a barbell, for example, specific muscle act to move the limb at a particular speed under a set rate of tension development. One can lift a light weight of 3 lb at a number of speeds. But as the weight increases, say 25 lb and then to 75 lb, the speed options decrease accordingly. When lifting a pencil, one generates just enough force to lift the pencil regardless of how fast or slowly the arm moves. When attempting to lift the heaviest weight possible, all of the available motor units require activation. From the standpoint of neural control, the selective recruitment and firing patterns of the fast-twitch and slow-twitch motor units that control shoulder, arm, hand, and finger movements, and perhaps other stabilizing regions, provide the mechanism to produce the desired coordinated response.

"In accordance with the size principle, slow-twitch motor units with lower thresholds for activation are selectively recruited during light to moderate effort. Activation of slow-twitch units occurs during sustained jogging or cycling or slow swimming or slowly lifting a relatively light weight. More rapid, powerful movements progressively activate fast-twitch fatigue-resistant (type IIa) units up through the fast-twitch fatigable (IIx) units at peak force. As a runner or cyclist reaches a hill during a distance race, selected fast-twitch units activate to maintain a fairly constant pace over varying terrain. Large single muscles with broad origins and/or insertions like the deltoid contain smaller, independently controlled "muscles within muscles" that activate depending on the segment's line of action and direction of the intended motion. Such an arrangement allows the CNS to offer flexibility to fine-tune skeletal muscle activity to meet the demands of the imposed motor task."

McArdle, Katch, Katch. Exercise Physiology. Nutrition, Energy, and Human Performance. 8th edition. 2015. Pages 399-400.

In my mind, the slow twitch must be active throughout a set of kettlebell ballistics to maintain posture and to stabilize. They are also assisting the fast twitch fibers in driving the movement. But it's the fast twitch that make the movement powerful.

Apologies to @aciampa , for my "paper slinging".

 

[Anna C]

the slow twitch must be active throughout a set of kettlebell ballistics to maintain posture and to stabilize. They are also assisting the fast twitch fibers in driving the movement. But it's the fast twitch that make the movement powerful.

I like that wording. And I stand corrected on that, @North Coast Miller.... It appears that your statement, "You can train to ensure you hit the fastest fibers but you'll be recruiting everything else to do so" is accurate.

Aren't we fascinatingly complex pieces of machinery? Cool stuff.

 

[Jim Lauerman]

Aren't we fascinatingly complex pieces of machinery?

“Fearfully and wonderfully made”.

 

[Bret S.]

You're less concerned about the science and more concerned about what you should do

True

No one is asking you to test this; and forums do not owe you answers. Not being a d@#$, this is just the truth.

I like straight talk and take your point without issue

you're effectively not testing or using any one protocol

True

You have been blindly following this because you're still asking basic questions.

True

Are you able to see the difference between science and practice, and which one we should all be more concered with?

Yes

That wasn't a zing at you, and I apologize if it offended you. I've been a part of this forum since its inception and so watched it evolve into what it is now. Along the way, there are/were many characters that show up, as do in most forums, I assume.

No worries, sometimes in text conversations things are interpreted in unintended ways as we all know. Again I really appreciate the 'straight talk'.

Then, there is the just useless slinging back and forth of scientific papers in forum arguments to support this or that assertion. The latter is what I gripe about and what my response was targeting. I was using your post as a way to generally whine about paper slinging, so again, apologies if you took it different from how I meant it.

I honestly think you have a healthy curiosity and are not paralyzed by the analysis.

I am curious but not sophisticated, just a simple man playing with some methods and concepts.

Based on what you reported, you don't seem to be using the A+A protocol; you're sort of using the general A+A structure for a few sessions each week. It's only important in the case that you make assertions concerning your experience with A+A. I.e., if you were testing this protocol, I couldn't use your testimony for or against the efficacy of A+A.

Again you have nailed me. I've said many times my intention is to eventually go to A+A, (the real one) as my shoulder strengthens, for now I'm playing around with some ideas in training to see what their effects are and maybe learn a little along the way.
I see the power and beauty of A+A, right now I'm trying to get a foot in the door on it with snatches. I could do it with swings but snatching is what I really, really want to do and I'm hoping to be there in some months if all goes well.