all posts post new thread

What next? Double Kettlebells or Barbells?

The barbell is just a tool.

The outcomes will be driven by your programming and nutrition.

You could just as easily look at CrossFit athletes and see examples where lots of barbell work is not making them bulky.
I think CrossFit athletes ARE bulky, at the least the ones I see on TV.
 
Several people on this thread are giving me a hard time about the word "bulky". I used the Barbell to get bulky on purpose. I like being bulky. I think bulky is a very good thing. And I realize there are many things you can do with a barbell. But I think if you want to get bulky on purpose, the barbell is the best tool for that. And since the thread began with a question about Barbell vs. Double KB based on goal, I thought KB was better suited for that goal. That is all I meant to say. Sorry if I offended anyone with the work "bulky". Please don't BULKSHAME me.
 
I think CrossFit athletes ARE bulky, at the least the ones I see on TV.

Perhaps we just have different definitions.

I don't consider this bulky:

eat-for-lean-gains-e1647013358280.jpg



I consider this bulky:


Screen-Shot-2022-05-24-at-9.48.38-AM.png
 
You've happened upon a controversial word... especially in the women's strength training arena! Trainers are forever arguing about whether strength training, especially barbell training, will make a woman "bulky" and whether it's a myth.

My perspective is that "bulky" is in the eye of the beholder. What is bulky to one, is not to another. And whether it's a positive or a negative thing to be, also a matter of personal opinion. And whatever it is, I can say I'm more of it since starting to train with barbells as opposed to kettlebells, especially since my barbell work started with more powerlifting style and then moved to weightlifting.

I think it's a number of things, all more likely (though certainly not guaranteed) to be brought on with barbell training:
  • more muscle mass overall
  • heavier bodyweight
  • a sturdier core
  • more upper body mass
Whereas, kettlebell training will tend more towards:
  • wiry muscles that are stronger than they look
  • less cross sectional area of most muscles ("less bulk")
  • lighter bodyweight
  • strong abs, but not a beercan shape
  • smaller legs than a barbell lifter
All that said... it's all in the programming and use of the tool, not the tool itself. So those are generalities that aren't guaranteed to apply to any one individual.

Not to mention diet, which certainly plays a major role.

Anyway, I think the point is a good one! I agree with @jayjo.
 
You've happened upon a controversial word... especially in the women's strength training arena! Trainers are forever arguing about whether strength training, especially barbell training, will make a woman "bulky" and whether it's a myth.

My perspective is that "bulky" is in the eye of the beholder. What is bulky to one, is not to another. And whether it's a positive or a negative thing to be, also a matter of personal opinion. And whatever it is, I can say I'm more of it since starting to train with barbells as opposed to kettlebells, especially since my barbell work started with more powerlifting style and then moved to weightlifting.

I think it's a number of things, all more likely (though certainly not guaranteed) to be brought on with barbell training:
  • more muscle mass overall
  • heavier bodyweight
  • a sturdier core
  • more upper body mass
Whereas, kettlebell training will tend more towards:
  • wiry muscles that are stronger than they look
  • less cross sectional area of most muscles ("less bulk")
  • lighter bodyweight
  • strong abs, but not a beercan shape
  • smaller legs than a barbell lifter

Do kettlebells make you "toned"?

;)
 
Do kettlebells make you "toned"?

;)

"Toned" is as much in the eye of the beholder as "bulky." But IMO, yes, they can, and in most cases for regular practitioners, they do!

Now whether one has the BF% to be able to SEE that "tone" is another matter... ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ege
"Toned" is as much in the eye of the beholder as "bulky." But IMO, yes, they can, and in most cases for regular practitioners, they do!

Now whether one has the BF% to be able to SEE that "tone" is another matter... ;)

I was mostly teasing, as I've heard some say that there is "no such thing as toned".

i.e. they say it's a marketing term for mild hypertrophy used to target demographics concerned about getting bulky
 
Last edited:
That’s great!

I don’t know anyone else that trains seriously with kettlebells so when people ask me why I like them so much I usually just say because they’re in my basement. Of course there are more reasons but that’s a huge one.

So how do you manage doing both? Do you have a consistent schedule like two days at the gym two at home, or is it more random and flexible?

I teach at a gym 3-4x a week so I do barbell work and other stuff like dragon flags at the gym, kettlebells at home..

If you need help structuring yours, shoot me a message and let's hop on a call.. I'd be happy to help you out
 
I'd learn the deadlift but use the bulk of my training with double bells

I agree with Mark. Deadlift once a week. Double KB twice a week.
Twice a week is enough to make progress on any other kind of program.
If you want to train four or five days a week, then you can do three times a week or A/B workouts which are used by a number of trainers such as Geoff Neupert and Aleks Salkin. I find A/B to be the sweet spot between training continuity and variety at least for me.

You can also have a maintenance/variety day once a week for whatever program you have finished to lock in those gains and or movement patterns.

You can't go wrong with either one. Both the DL and double KB were game changers for me. I wish I had started sooner.
 
How long time wise would one of these sessions take. Sometimes I think I would get stronger with shorter sessions two times a week but just can’t bring myself to do it. I like volume and have the time. Just asking.

Kind regards,
Bill
I find A/B to be the sweet spot between training continuity and variety at least for me.
 
How long time wise would one of these sessions take. Sometimes I think I would get stronger with shorter sessions two times a week but just can’t bring myself to do it. I like volume and have the time. Just asking.

Kind regards,
Bill

Repeating Geoff Neupert's Giant program three times helped me to understand how much of a training effect can be achieved with only 30 min three times a week. I like density training now. You set a timer and don't worry about counting reps and sets except for a baseline and when you finish a program. I do that with chinup-dip supersets. As many as I can do in 20 min without sacrificing form.

Generally speaking, if you can work out for more than an hour, then the work rate is probably lacking. Working out more frequently at high intensity but less time will probably work better for you. Age, training experience etc. are all factors. I am talking about a normal population.

Geoff's advice is basically to adjust the time and intensity in relation to the weekly frequency. Therefore, if you work out everyday then 20-30 min would be sufficient. If you want to work out 5 times a week then 45 min would be fine. I forget the exact numbers but basically you just figure out what you can recover from and sustain. As Geoff and others state, you may have to adjust to what else is going on in your life, so I take advantage of a low stress workweek, or a particularly good day of sleep or whatever at my age and push harder on those days. There are many sophisticated training programs, but none of it matters for a busy, professional, middle-aged dad, if I am not up to it that day and can't recover. I don't plan rest days, strictly. They tend to "happen" to me. I take them when I have to. I do have a plan but I also train intuitively as Brett Jones calls it.

The longer the workout, the more likely we are to take longer breaks or drag it out. It is like work. The more time you have the longer a task will take. Hard deadlines can help. SF principles of heavyish repeat sets of low reps with adequate recovery can still let you get in a lot of volume. Geoff N. and others argue that heavish, explosive, low rep sets can even benefit fat loss goals as they target faster twitch muscle fibers. That is one reason I like the double KB.

What most people do is they have a particular length of time that they workout and it is the same regardless of the weekly frequency. However, our bodies can only recover from so much work. It is better to think of total quality hours per week and then divide that into what makes sense in terms of frequency and other life factors. The size of the pie is fixed. The issue is how many pieces will you slice it into this week?

By the way, if you are just starting deadlift then I recommend repeat singles or doubles with short rest periods or cluster sets. It is good practice to reset more often, as the setup is particularly critical to DL. I almost always see form suffer when people do sets of five or ten. The hinge creeps up and the ROM decreases as fatigue sets in. or people start to fail to lockout. properly.

It works for me. Those younger and/or with specific athletic goals and greater recovery and time may have more options to consider.

Sorry, confused you for the OP.
 
Last edited:
You've happened upon a controversial word... especially in the women's strength training arena! Trainers are forever arguing about whether strength training, especially barbell training, will make a woman "bulky" and whether it's a myth.

My perspective is that "bulky" is in the eye of the beholder. What is bulky to one, is not to another. And whether it's a positive or a negative thing to be, also a matter of personal opinion. And whatever it is, I can say I'm more of it since starting to train with barbells as opposed to kettlebells, especially since my barbell work started with more powerlifting style and then moved to weightlifting.

I think it's a number of things, all more likely (though certainly not guaranteed) to be brought on with barbell training:
  • more muscle mass overall
  • heavier bodyweight
  • a sturdier core
  • more upper body mass
Whereas, kettlebell training will tend more towards:
  • wiry muscles that are stronger than they look
  • less cross sectional area of most muscles ("less bulk")
  • lighter bodyweight
  • strong abs, but not a beercan shape
  • smaller legs than a barbell lifter
All that said... it's all in the programming and use of the tool, not the tool itself. So those are generalities that aren't guaranteed to apply to any one individual.

Not to mention diet, which certainly plays a major role.

Anyway, I think the point is a good one! I agree with @jayjo.

Even for women with "toned" aesthetic goals, they would be better off to achieve the look they want if they took advantage of beginner heavish barbel gains in the beginning before switching over to KB or whatever.

These days, I see many women using barbell for deadlifts, Smith machine for single leg deadlifts, or split squats, or barbell squats with the arm curl fixed bar, but the bar is so light and the reps are SO high, it just doesn't make sense. As you said, programming is key.
 
Barbells definitely don’t have to be more expensive than kettlebells. Initially, they MIGHT be, but the benefit is that you can use all the weights you pay for at the same time. If you have 3 pairs of kettlebells to be able to complete different lifts, you can only use 1 pair at a time so you have to buy more than you can use at any one time. When buying by the pound, that gets more costly pretty quick.

Before you buy anything else, I would try to use both at the gym for a while. When I bought a barbell (which was only $100 new from Titan and serves me just fine) I fell in love with barbell lifting. However, I’m currently in a 12 week double kettlebell program as I appreciate them as well.

One way to use both is to do a program that includes both, but another way is to alternate blocks. When I’m done with this program, my next one will be barbell based and I might not touch my kettlebells for a while other than for warmup and/or mobility work. But eventually I’ll be back.
 
s
The guy said he wants to move well for sports. I think heavy barbell work would prevent that.
Heavy Barbell Training

A well written program that incorporates Maxium Strength improves sports performance, as moving well. Moving Well, a vague term with no real meaning

Olympic Lifters produce some of, if not, the Highest Power Outputs in sports.

Their training revolves around Maxium Strength Training and Olympic Movement (Explosive Power Training).

Olympic Lifter are also the second most flexible group of athletes, behind gymnast.

"What You Think Doen't Matter..."

As Dr Craig Marker stated in one of his StrongFirst article, "What you think and your feeling don't matter; Facts do." ''

With that in mind, you need delve in the research data.

have done strength training for years and gotten very bulky.

Barbell Strength Training Does Not Equate To Bulky

The primary factor is...

Calorie Intake

You have to eat a lot. I began serious strength training at age 33 @ 185 lbs. At age 40 I was my strongest and biggest @ 240 lbs. I'm 50 years old now and 220 lbs. I eat plenty, but to stay 240 I have to eat and take shakes, etc.

Even you acknowledge gaining weight revolves around calorie intake.

Couch Potato Study

Couch Potatos were overfed and did nothing more than watch TV.

The good news is that the Couch Potatos gained muscle mass without exercise.

The bad news was their weight gain was 20% Muscle Mass and 80% Fat.

The Benefits of Exercise

1) Gaining Weight


It ensure a larger percentage of weight gain is muscle mass.
2) Weight Loss

It preserves and protects Muscle Mass during a calorie deficit.

3) Increases Insulin Sensitivity

Increasing Insulin Sensitivity improve fat loss during a calorie deficit and also improve gains in Muscle Mass in a formualted calorie surplus.
Summary

Gaining weight and being bulky is driven by calorie intake. Barbell Training alone does equate to being Bulky.
 
Back
Top Bottom