Kettlebell Sikastan view on kettlebells

[Starlord]

We'll def have to agree to disagree on several points.

Loaded pushups are equal or superior to bench - full anterior chain activation with a closed chain movement, bench is open chain movement and pairs lower posterior chain activation with a push, something the body will almost never do in a dynamic setting.

Definitely disagree with this one. In the British military the biggest cause of non deployment status is due to shoulder injuries and that it due to massive volume of push ups.

When the shoulder isn't pinned back it leaves one prone to shoulder and rotator cuff injuries.

Hence why they aren't as heavily used in an SnC setting.

Deficit skater squats or BSS loaded with a pair of heavy kbs, dumbbells, sandbags etc are going to provide plenty of leg work and comparable resistance while eliminating lumbar flexion entirely. Also you will almost never execute a bilateral squat in a dynamic setting. Again I'll refer to Boyle, who has explained his rationale better than I can.

The days of trying to directly mimic what is done in sport in an SnC environment had a very short life span.

Now we're back to the soviet methodology of strength training. Which is that the work in the gym is to develop maximal strength and power output in relation to their sport, some specific work and pre/rehab work.

Sports specific work is where the athlete learns to apply that strength and power specifically to their sport.

That's why all the best throwers, rugby teams, football teams, rugby avec fag pad teams, rowers, wrestlers etc all attempt to get as strong as possible until the pursuit of additional strength takes away too much adaptive energy from the specific sports work.

In my opinion the only thing barbell owns is heavy back squat and DL. Everything else can be subb'd using other means that (combined with sport specific drills) will provide comparable qualities. We're talking about tension, movement speed, movement mechanics (pretty sure Rip has a concise quote about Oly lifts to that effect). There is nothing magical about ANY individual implement. Additionally barbell forces the hands to align under load in ways the body would never adopt on its own.

Rip is a poor example to quote. As he has had zero serious athletes he has coached to any level of success.

Rips call to fame is writing arguably one of the best beginner strength programs ever.

But if you've ever heard successful weightlifting coaches pick apart what he says, you quickly see the deficiencies of his knowledge.

Every time the primacy of barbell (or any other mode) come up I am compelled to bring up the '72 Dolphins who trained on Nautilus, not barbell.

This to me is a prime example of the exception doesn't disprove the rule. Machines are a GREAT addition.

But the barbell is king. That's why most use the barbell.

If we're talking about traditional KB or Bulgarian bag being a substitute for focused strength training I 100% agree with the video. But with very little fuss these tools can be used for all manner of training. If they're arguing the necessity of barbell for anything, then I flat out disagree.

Their argument is specifically for high level SnC. Not for the average trainee in general. They already conceded that KB are a great tool for general trainees.

I agree with the boys from the Undemocratic Republic of Sikastan in the way that the barbell is king for the strength portion of SnC.

I personally rate KB and sandbags a little higher than they do.

Mace's I do not rate in the slightest. Neither do I rate bulgarian bags specifically. I can do windmills with a kettlebell. Done.

Loving this debate so far and the feedback from everyone thus far.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Definitely disagree with this one. In the British military the biggest cause of non deployment status is due to shoulder injuries and that it due to massive volume of push ups.

When the shoulder isn't pinned back it leaves one prone to shoulder and rotator cuff injuries.

Hence why they aren't as heavily used in an SnC setting.

The days of trying to directly mimic what is done in sport in an SnC environment had a very short life span.

Loving this debate so far and the feedback from everyone thus far.

Not going to line for line a response, pretty sure distilled down we agree more than not.

I would say once you load up the pushup the volume drops down to a level comparable to any bench program. PU also allows for greater shoulder mobility and greater ROM at lockout because. It also frees the hands to adopt however much rotation is needed to increase room at the shoulder joint.

As for mimicking movement patterns it is def not worth it to load the actual sport movement. However, you will get far greater carryover if you are more mechanically close than not. Eg someone who trains heavy uni legwork vs backsquat will have an advantage rucking heavy up a grade.

 

[Starlord]

Here's something I've wondered - how much of these standards are because benching actually carries over to the field, and how much of these are that when someone is capable of a bench of X, that indicates that they have a degree of physical size and strength that is beneficial. If the latter, could other things be used instead of the bench? Is a 400lb bench itself a benefit, or would someone be as capable on the field if they could clean and press double 48kgs for 10? You can nitpick my example, but the general question still stands.

I would think if the capability to bench 400lb is beneficial in the specific sport e.g. Rugby or throwing.

Would being able to clean and press double 48s for 10 get you the capability to bench 400lb and all the benefits of fending or the base strength that will lead to a 400lb+ behind the neck jerk, which will lead to a 20m throw with a shot?

If it does then why aren't more rugby teams and throwers doing that instead of benching?

The KB works around the user as opposed to the barbell. Better in regards to injury prevention from the actual performing of a press than the barbell.

This is interesting. I think KB cleans and snatches are totally different movements and accomplish very different purposes than BB variants. KB variants are "hard" because of the handwork involved, which is taken out of the BB variants; BB variants are "hard" because of the mobility demand, which is largely taken out of the KB variants.

I think the KB variations are across the board easier. The one issue I had was bashing my forearm when doing snatches. It only took another session the understand punching through and another session after that to square away the technique.

So IMO the learning curve makes the KB superior in that regards. But obviously the barbell is king for loading and the ability to express large amounts of force explosively is king in most sports IMO.

 

[Anna C]

I went from mainstream fitness --> endurance sports (running, kayaking, cycling) --> kettlebell training --> barbell strength traning --> barbell weightlifting.

When I got into barbell strength training, specifically when I stepped out of StrongFirst barbell strength training (SFL) and into some other worlds (Starting Strength, Barbell Medicine, Barbell Logic) that was actually the first time I really got familiar with the term "Strength and Conditioning". And this was after I got a personal trainer certification and was training people part-time.

S&C may seem like the pinnacle of the fitness world, but from my vantage point from the more general world of fitness, it's actually fairly specialized. It's a way to train athletes who are playing another sport to increase their strength, and improve their conditioning, so that they can physically change themselves to have these qualities to bring to their sport. Of course, they want the most direct route. I agree, barbells are king, certainly for the strength part, and can be used for some of the conditioning as well.

The term S&C could apply to someone who doesn't have a sport -- after all, we can all generalize to some degree that we want to gain strength and we want to have stamina to do what we want to do in life. But I think that's where the paths can diverge. If your training IS your sport (as is often the case with kettlebell training), it can be the means to the end. And I think everyone here knows, yes, you CAN get strong and conditioned by training with kettlebells. But it takes more time and more volume than it would make sense to do, if you have another sport to play.

So generally I agree with the points in the video. However, one thing did catch my ear, at 13:35: "We just haven't seen it being that productive. And it doesn't follow the principles or allow you to extrapolate and expose the principles of what a good S&C program would be." OK, well, it's not mainstream, but.... I think Pavel has done this. The knowledge and protocols available in Strong Endurance DO follow principles, and what he has done is extrapolate from the available research and experience -- what works, what doesn't, and how the tools can be used to achieve specific objectives. Some of this is available in The Quick and the Dead. But there is much more available in the SE library of protocols.

As for how easy a tool or method is to learn or teach... lots of variables there. But there's a lot more to being able to effectively employ a tool than just the one-on-one trainer and trainee. There's the culture, the shared knowledge, the gym space and resource investment, the coach acceptance and what is accepted and respected... and there's a whole world of barbell out there that just will never change to kettlebell or other tools. But that doesn't mean it can't work well on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Boris Bachmann]

Here's something I've wondered - how much of these standards are because benching actually carries over to the field, and how much of these are that when someone is capable of a bench of X, that indicates that they have a degree of physical size and strength that is beneficial. If the latter, could other things be used instead of the bench? Is a 400lb bench itself a benefit, or would someone be as capable on the field if they could clean and press double 48kgs for 10? You can nitpick my example, but the general question still stands.

Well, I'm going to say this and yes, there will be a few anomalies maybe, but generally you're not going to find people who built themselves up from a 98lb weakling to an Atlas who can bench 400 or press double 48kg bells with kettlebells exclusively. Now, yes, you could argue that it IS possible and part of the reason you don't see this more often is that KBs just aren't as ubiquitous or haven't been around as long, etc, and if you did, well, okay. You might also argue that people who bench 400 aren't using barbells exclusively either, but the thing is (and probably what prompted Sika to make the video, other than just wanting to stir up views and controversy) that I don't hear people (outside of some KB circles) really singing the praises of a singular tool (KB, barbell, thigh master, or whatever) to the exclusion of all other pieces of equipment.

Whether any of what I just wrote is germane to the original topic or not, I'm sure.

 

[North Coast Miller]

"S&C" isn't a standardized approach with standardized metrics either. For example there are very successful NFL strength coaches still using HIT.

 

[Boris Bachmann]

"S&C" isn't a standardized approach with standardized metrics either. For example there are very successful NFL strength coaches still using HIT.

This may be all wet, but my understanding is that currently many NFL players have their own coaches that they do their S&C work with.

 

[Starlord]

Well, I'm going to say this and yes, there will be a few anomalies maybe, but generally you're not going to find people who built themselves up from a 98lb weakling to an Atlas who can bench 400 or press double 48kg bells with kettlebells exclusively. Now, yes, you could argue that it IS possible and part of the reason you don't see this more often is that KBs just aren't as ubiquitous or haven't been around as long, etc, and if you did, well, okay. You might also argue that people who bench 400 aren't using barbells exclusively either, but the thing is (and probably what prompted Sika to make the video, other than just wanting to stir up views and controversy) that I don't hear people (outside of some KB circles) really singing the praises of a singular tool (KB, barbell, thigh master, or whatever) to the exclusion of all other pieces of equipment.

Whether any of what I just wrote is germane to the original topic or not, I'm sure.

Well we're not talking about the 98lb weakling here. They've been very clear when they said "high level SnC for athletes."

I'm also very sure (although not 100% sure) that kettlebells have been around in russian/baltic nations longer than the barbell has.

So if the kettlebell was in everyway the equal to the barbell in a high level SnC setting then why did the USSR for the most part (excluding sports where the barbell is a necessity e.g. weightlifting and powerlifting) opt to use the barbell as their primary tool?

Also thigh master got a little giggle from me. Not too sure if you meant stair master or if there is a device called the thigh master. Wouldn't surprise me, the fitness world is full of gimmicks.

 

[Starlord]

"S&C" isn't a standardized approach with standardized metrics either. For example there are very successful NFL strength coaches still using HIT.

Are you referring to HIT being High Intensity Training or High Intensity Interval Training?

 

[offwidth]

due to shoulder injuries and that it due to massive volume of push ups.

No doubt!
But is that the fault of the push up, or the type of programming and / push up style and technique?

 

[Starlord]

Not going to line for line a response, pretty sure distilled down we agree more than not.

I would say once you load up the pushup the volume drops down to a level comparable to any bench program. PU also allows for greater shoulder mobility and greater ROM at lockout because. It also frees the hands to adopt however much rotation is needed to increase room at the shoulder joint.

As for mimicking movement patterns it is def not worth it to load the actual sport movement. However, you will get far greater carryover if you are more mechanically close than not. Eg someone who trains heavy uni legwork vs backsquat will have an advantage rucking heavy up a grade.

I don't know if a lunge has helped my yomping what so ever. Where as squats definitely have.

What Lunges definitely helped with was taking a knee during a foot patrol. But the squat built the base of strength. The lunge just helped the stabilisers.

Like the icing on the cake.

 

[Starlord]

No doubt!
But is that the fault of the push up, or the type of programming and / push up style and technique?

It'll be many factors.

Push ups being the standard physical punishment for decades. Push ups being used in PT. Push ups being used to carry over to fire and maneuver drills on exercise.

My thinking was always a lack of balance (pulling movements) and a lack of strength to effectively push a body, with weapons system, plate carrier, battle belt, assualt pack and kit in the field.

I personally felt that having a big CGBP at a young age set me up for avoiding such issues.

 

[North]

This article seeks to define elite.

So You Think You’re “Elite”

A new way of classifying athletes aims to quantify the thresholds that distinguish recreational athletes from their trained, highly trained, and elite brethren

www.outsideonline.com

I think kettlebells can be primary tool for tiers 0 and 1 = 88% of the population.

Probably most folks in tier 2 as well (excepting those who are legitimately on their way to tier 3 and 4).

 

[Boris Bachmann]

Well we're not talking about the 98lb weakling here. They've been very clear when they said "high level SnC for athletes."

Yes, I know. I was responding to John K's query about strength/size standards and the tools being used to reach them.

I'm also very sure (although not 100% sure) that kettlebells have been around in russian/baltic nations longer than the barbell has.

So if the kettlebell was in everyway the equal to the barbell in a high level SnC setting then why did the USSR for the most part (excluding sports where the barbell is a necessity e.g. weightlifting and powerlifting) opt to use the barbell as their primary tool?

Yeah, I think we've been in agreement for the entirety of the thread.

Also thigh master got a little giggle from me. Not too sure if you meant stair master or if there is a device called the thigh master. Wouldn't surprise me, the fitness world is full of gimmicks.

 

[John K]

I would think if the capability to bench 400lb is beneficial in the specific sport e.g. Rugby or throwing.

Would being able to clean and press double 48s for 10 get you the capability to bench 400lb and all the benefits of fending or the base strength that will lead to a 400lb+ behind the neck jerk, which will lead to a 20m throw with a shot?

If it does then why aren't more rugby teams and throwers doing that instead of benching?

The KB works around the user as opposed to the barbell. Better in regards to injury prevention from the actual performing of a press than the barbell.

I think the KB variations are across the board easier. The one issue I had was bashing my forearm when doing snatches. It only took another session the understand punching through and another session after that to square away the technique.

So IMO the learning curve makes the KB superior in that regards. But obviously the barbell is king for loading and the ability to express large amounts of force explosively is king in most sports IMO.

Well, I'm going to say this and yes, there will be a few anomalies maybe, but generally you're not going to find people who built themselves up from a 98lb weakling to an Atlas who can bench 400 or press double 48kg bells with kettlebells exclusively. Now, yes, you could argue that it IS possible and part of the reason you don't see this more often is that KBs just aren't as ubiquitous or haven't been around as long, etc, and if you did, well, okay. You might also argue that people who bench 400 aren't using barbells exclusively either, but the thing is (and probably what prompted Sika to make the video, other than just wanting to stir up views and controversy) that I don't hear people (outside of some KB circles) really singing the praises of a singular tool (KB, barbell, thigh master, or whatever) to the exclusion of all other pieces of equipment.

Whether any of what I just wrote is germane to the original topic or not, I'm sure.

For both of you, I think I should rephrase my question: what quality does the 400lb bench signify, and are there other ways of assessing this other than the bench? Why has the bench become the "go to" for a lot of sports, other than it became a very popular movement that people like comparing? Do we know? In the shot putter example, the coach talked about how both with himself when he was an athlete and in throwers he coached, there was a fairly direct relationship between increasing bench and increasing distance thrown until around 400lbs, and then the amount of work it took to increase the bench was worth the negligible distance improvement (or sometimes regression). But is there such a direct carryover to other sports, such as football (position specific)? If not, then would incorporating other means of assessing be beneficial?

 

[North Coast Miller]

Are you referring to HIT being High Intensity Training or High Intensity Interval Training?

High Intensity Training.

I don't know if a lunge has helped my yomping what so ever. Where as squats definitely have.

What Lunges definitely helped with was taking a knee during a foot patrol. But the squat built the base of strength. The lunge just helped the stabilisers.

Like the icing on the cake.

Not talking about lunges here. When I maxed out on double front kb squat I had to switch to uni work. I don't have space or need for a barbell rack so that's when I got into sandbags. I guarantee if you work up to reps with a 3/4 bodyweight or heavier loaded skater squat or other true single leg squat (one leg off a box etc) you will definitely feel a difference moving up a grade, esp if you have to take a higher step.

Lunges not so much....

Not knocking backsquat, there is no better tool for triggering rapid whole body muscle gain. That said it is no more essential than bench press.

 

[offwidth]

It'll be many factors.

Push ups being the standard physical punishment for decades. Push ups being used in PT. Push ups being used to carry over to fire and maneuver drills on exercise.

My thinking was always a lack of balance (pulling movements) and a lack of strength to effectively push a body, with weapons system, plate carrier, battle belt, assualt pack and kit in the field.

I personally felt that having a big CGBP at a young age set me up for avoiding such issues.

Yep. Been there, done that. Push ups and the army go together like Gin and Tonic.

 

[Starlord]

This article seeks to define elite.

So You Think You’re “Elite”

A new way of classifying athletes aims to quantify the thresholds that distinguish recreational athletes from their trained, highly trained, and elite brethren

www.outsideonline.com

I think kettlebells can be primary tool for tiers 0 and 1 = 88% of the population.

Probably most folks in tier 2 as well (excepting those who are legitimately on their way to tier 3 and 4).

I agree with that.

I remember a post by a father of a young boxer who was mid camp for a fight and wanted his son to do some film of SnC.

Majority rightfully said do not mess with anything mid camp and allow the boxing coach to do his work.

My I advised S&S in his next off season. As its a good place to start to build a level of bodily awareness and also minimises soreness (outside of the initial adaptation period).

However the video was specifically about high level SnC. Not novices.

 

[Boris Bachmann]

For both of you, I think I should rephrase my question: what quality does the 400lb bench signify, and are there other ways of assessing this other than the bench? Why has the bench become the "go to" for a lot of sports, other than it became a very popular movement that people like comparing? Do we know? In the shot putter example, the coach talked about how both with himself when he was an athlete and in throwers he coached, there was a fairly direct relationship between increasing bench and increasing distance thrown until around 400lbs, and then the amount of work it took to increase the bench was worth the negligible distance improvement (or sometimes regression). But is there such a direct carryover to other sports, such as football (position specific)? If not, then would incorporating other means of assessing be beneficial?

The value of the bench press (or any other exercise I guess) as an assessment, vs. their value as a builder of sport applicable strength are two different questions.

The bench press became the standard I'm guessing sometime in the 70s - it's easy to learn and build and it's not bad as a general assessment of upper body strength. Is it the end all be all? No, of course not. We could talk about barbell overhead/military pressing too if you'd prefer. Somehow all of this seems to be getting into the weeds.

 

[Starlord]

Yes, I know. I was responding to John K's query about strength/size standards and the tools being used to reach them.

Yeah, I think we've been in agreement for the entirety of the thread.

Yup. I've seen these in pound land.