Sean M
Level 7 Valued Member
Forgive me if this is incoherent. It makes sense in my head; I have a hard time organizing my thoughts sometimes, especially for something I've been mulling over sporadically.
If tension is strength, and strength is force against resistance, then more tension means more force (more strength displayed). Thus, an exercise which stimulates/recruits more muscle tension than another, will induce a greater strength adaptation. 'Strength adaptation' being an increase in the body's ability to produce the force needed to overcome more resistance (lift more weight).
The more efficient the load/lifter system, the more load that can be applied. This is why the barbell allows for the heaviest weights: the exercises are mechanically efficient. In the press, for example, the center of load is stacked on top of multiple joints and muscle energy can efficiently be transferred to getting the load up in a straight line over the center of gravity. Squat and deadlift are similar: the load is over the midfoot, and the lifter/load system moves efficiently around that center to get the weight up.
The offset handle of a kettlebell introduces inefficiency (e.g. I believe most people can barbell overhead press more than they can double kettlebell press?). In the kettlebell press, the load is not above the wrist, but next to it. This limits the amount of weight that can be lifted. BUT, does less weight always mean less force (tension) recruitment?
Can two unequal loads recruit the same (or the lesser weight recruit/demand more) tension, due simply to differences in leverage? Is this the "secret sauce" of kettlebell strength training: the same (or more) tension with less weight?
I think of something like the way up from a heavy barbell snatch, say 300lbs. The movement is to stand up with a load overhead. Compare that to a 48kg getup - also standing up with a load overhead. AFAIK, more people can do a 300lb snatch than could do a 100lb get-up (kettlebell or barbell), because (perhaps?) the lighter getup requires more tension (?), due to inefficient leverages, than does the stand-up segment of a barbell overhead squat.
Bottoms-up pressing is another example. Has anyone compared an EKG or something similar of a 24kg bottoms-up press compared to a ~110 pound barbell overhead press? Or perhaps more equivalent: 50lb dumbbell press? Or even BU to regular kettlebell press with the same weight?
In other words, is weight/load the master variable of strength training, or is tension? Which comes first, load or tension? How exactly (and to what extent, compared to the barbell/lifter system) does mechanical disadvantage/inefficiency create virtual tension that matches or exceeds that generated by a higher absolute load on a barbell?
An articulate answer would go a long way to advocate for kettlebell strength training for skeptics who scoff at relatively puny absolute weights. I'm reminded of the quote from Pavel somewhere about him challenging 300-pound bench pressers to one-arm press a 40kg at a strength convention, which many couldn't do, even with assistance getting it into the rack position.
If tension is strength, and strength is force against resistance, then more tension means more force (more strength displayed). Thus, an exercise which stimulates/recruits more muscle tension than another, will induce a greater strength adaptation. 'Strength adaptation' being an increase in the body's ability to produce the force needed to overcome more resistance (lift more weight).
The more efficient the load/lifter system, the more load that can be applied. This is why the barbell allows for the heaviest weights: the exercises are mechanically efficient. In the press, for example, the center of load is stacked on top of multiple joints and muscle energy can efficiently be transferred to getting the load up in a straight line over the center of gravity. Squat and deadlift are similar: the load is over the midfoot, and the lifter/load system moves efficiently around that center to get the weight up.
The offset handle of a kettlebell introduces inefficiency (e.g. I believe most people can barbell overhead press more than they can double kettlebell press?). In the kettlebell press, the load is not above the wrist, but next to it. This limits the amount of weight that can be lifted. BUT, does less weight always mean less force (tension) recruitment?
Can two unequal loads recruit the same (or the lesser weight recruit/demand more) tension, due simply to differences in leverage? Is this the "secret sauce" of kettlebell strength training: the same (or more) tension with less weight?
I think of something like the way up from a heavy barbell snatch, say 300lbs. The movement is to stand up with a load overhead. Compare that to a 48kg getup - also standing up with a load overhead. AFAIK, more people can do a 300lb snatch than could do a 100lb get-up (kettlebell or barbell), because (perhaps?) the lighter getup requires more tension (?), due to inefficient leverages, than does the stand-up segment of a barbell overhead squat.
Bottoms-up pressing is another example. Has anyone compared an EKG or something similar of a 24kg bottoms-up press compared to a ~110 pound barbell overhead press? Or perhaps more equivalent: 50lb dumbbell press? Or even BU to regular kettlebell press with the same weight?
In other words, is weight/load the master variable of strength training, or is tension? Which comes first, load or tension? How exactly (and to what extent, compared to the barbell/lifter system) does mechanical disadvantage/inefficiency create virtual tension that matches or exceeds that generated by a higher absolute load on a barbell?
An articulate answer would go a long way to advocate for kettlebell strength training for skeptics who scoff at relatively puny absolute weights. I'm reminded of the quote from Pavel somewhere about him challenging 300-pound bench pressers to one-arm press a 40kg at a strength convention, which many couldn't do, even with assistance getting it into the rack position.