Kettlebell A&A snatch for aerobic development at intermediate level.

[Reuben B]

My question: For those beyond the beginner stages of aerobic development. Do you still see A&A as the best use of your time? Or should I just do steady state for aerobic development, and heavier snatches with longer rests for strength and specific conditioning?

Context: I started kettlebell training with S&S up to timed solid. For the past year I have predominantly done A&A style swings or snatches (typically on the minute.) I regulate it by heart rate based off drift tests. I have done a few lactate tests to confirm that, for me at least, that is in the ballpark of consistent low lactate levels. Initially I was very happy with the results. But as the volume needed to make progress crept up, I started having to do steady state walks or steps to get around hand/joint wear and tear. I estimate I need a minimal time of around 90min zone 2 work 3-4 times a week to make progress. What I have been doing (when I can find time) is 30min of A&A snatches followed immediately by 60min traditional work. But I am wondering if the lighter snatches are turning into needless wear and tear on hands/joints.

 

[Anna C]

For those beyond the beginner stages of aerobic development. Do you still see A&A as the best use of your time? Or should I just do steady state for aerobic development, and heavier snatches with longer rests for strength and specific conditioning?

Goals: Are you satisfied with where you are in your physical state and capabilities and basically maintaining, or are you trying to move towards something different than where you are currently?

Also, do you enjoy your training, or would you like to spend the time differently if it met the goals in the question above?

 

[Reuben B]

Goals: Basically maintaining in the grand scheme of things. I am fit enough for work and daily life. But I have to have SOME goal to stay motivated enough to keep training. Snatch endurance got my interest and seems to be a decent enough proxy for "general fitness." So my goal is to improve the workload I can maintain for 30-60min.

Over all I enjoy the training I've been doing. I prefer strength/power oriented training. But the health/lifestyle benefits of endurance work make it worthwhile to me. Also, having a goal and seeing progress towards that goal really help my motivation.

 

[wespom9]

Remember that physiologically from Astrand's work, "interval" or A+A style gives benefits that are the average HR of the session.
Eg. 120 bpm steady state is very similar physiologically to interval with avg of 120 (eg half a 130 and half at 110).

I don't think anyone truly knows if adaptations are different from preload/afterload effects in terms of specific heart structure (if avg hr is 120 in a session, over long term does steady state cardio, interval cardio, "iron cardio" or A+A ballistics promote different adaptations? I don't think the literature has a definitive answer. yet.) I think research is definitely leaning towards Zone 2 training having the largest benefit, but the different ways one stays in Zone 2, and if one is greater than the others, isn't as clear.

This is all a ramble to say that if you enjoy power/strength oriented, there are many ways to do interval/fartlek style stuff without kettlebell ballistics and achieve what are likely very close to the same adaptations

 

[Anders]

You have reached timed solid, something I think is very impressive. You should be proud of yourself. I am not yet there, so take my advice with a grain of salt.

If I understand you correctly you have reached a quite high level of aerobic level. You would like to improve it, but you imagine that in order to improve it you have to put in more time pr. week than you are willing/able to do.

As Pavel says, and what makes sense to many of us, is that aerobic fitness is a very broad term. Maybe there are areas that could be defined as aerobic fitness that you have not yet worked on ? Here there would be a possibility for some easy wins. You could try the kettlebell mile for instance or iron cardio that Brett Jones promotes (and practices on his instagram page).

I am sure you have also heard about Quick and the Dead. Somewhere there Pavel suggests switching between A+A training and Quick and The Dead training.

And finally maybe you could work on doing A+A with other exercises like for instance Clean and Jerk ? Pavel has made an A+A program with Clean and Jerk as the main dish.

I hope this helps.

 

[Reuben B]

@wespom9 I guess to rephrase my question, are the benefits of Z2 training specific enough that it needs to be snatches. Which your answers sounds like, I can do the vast majority of my Z2 training with whatever generally related modality I like. Correct? That would save my weekly allotment of snatches for driving strength/power.

@Anders I wouldn't say I am highly aerobically trained! Just beyond beginner, so not everything works anymore. I want to keep my goal the goal (increased Z2 snatch ability.) I was wondering if I would see better results with more polarized, or specialized, training. A&A sessions were a great one stop shop for my fitness goals. Good reminder about Q&D. That + Long slow sessions would be in line with the more polarized approach I am considering.

I guess another way to pose my primary question. While highly efficient initially, is there a point where A&A snatches become somewhat "junk volume?" Too light to drive strength, not the most efficient way to drive aerobic conditioning.

Sounds like a trial run of Long slow and Q&D is in order.

 

[Alexander Halford]

Sounds like a trial run of Long slow and Q&D is in order.

Then you might find this training log interesting:

https://www.strongfirst.com/community/threads/the-quest-for-super-endurance.19261/

 

[Reuben B]

@Alexander Halford
That looks like a great log, will watch. Thanks!

 

[wespom9]

@wespom9 I guess to rephrase my question, are the benefits of Z2 training specific enough that it needs to be snatches. Which your answers sounds like, I can do the vast majority of my Z2 training with whatever generally related modality I like. Correct? That would save my weekly allotment of snatches for driving strength/power.

I guess another way to pose my primary question. While highly efficient initially, is there a point where A&A snatches become somewhat "junk volume?" Too light to drive strength, not the most efficient way to drive aerobic conditioning.

Sounds like a trial run of Long slow and Q&D is in order.

If I recall, the original point of A+A was that it was low reps, heavy. One of Al's forum members could elucidate more, I was a short term member over a year ago and my memory may certainly be wrong. @Harald Motz @Anna C

I don't think we have "the answer" unfortunately. To expand a bit, we do know that lifters do get somewhat of a left ventricle hypertrophy that is actually very similar to diseases like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, though do not suffer in any way that those from the disease do. We do know long distance runners can enlarge the volume of the ventricle; both of of these adaptations come as a result of long term training.
Where it gets interesting is the in-betweens. If I had to guess, A+A is closer to endurance adaptations, strength cardio closer to lifting adaptations. I can't think of any study that can purport to even guess the volumes of these modalities needed to create these adaptations (which by the way are just central, never mind all the peripheral adaptations). I don't even know if I'm right, just an educated guess. I find this so extremely fascinating.

nor do I think A+A gets to the point of junk volume.

 

[Mark Limbaga]

Just something to ponder on..

How much conditioning do you think you will have and how much more do you think you will need if you get to the point your A+A snatch bell is 32?? Given you practice the other tasks you're aiming for as well

 

[Anna C]

But I am wondering if the lighter snatches are turning into needless wear and tear on hands/joints.

I do not think that wear and tear on hands/joints is of any concern, unless your hand maintenance is causing you problems or your joints are complaining. Our bodies are continuously regenerating. Not like a car or machine that wears out with use.

So my goal is to improve the workload I can maintain for 30-60min.

A+A training will get you there over time.

guess to rephrase my question, are the benefits of Z2 training specific enough that it needs to be snatches. Which your answers sounds like, I can do the vast majority of my Z2 training with whatever generally related modality I like. Correct? That would save my weekly allotment of snatches for driving strength/power.

Here I would say no, doesn't need to be snatches if you just want to accumulate time in a working HR range that sort of gets at the benefits of Z2 steady state cardio. However, some choices target alactic training, i.e. quick emptying of the PCr "tank" and refilling it, better than others. But I don't think it is known what quantity of targeted alactic repeats are of most benefit. I think, as you said, enough heavy snatches to drive strength/power should be "enough" alactic training.

While highly efficient initially, is there a point where A&A snatches become somewhat "junk volume?" Too light to drive strength, not the most efficient way to drive aerobic conditioning.

There doesn't seem to be a point where A+A snatches become somewhat "junk volume", but you may run into limiters with your hands, recovery, ability to maintain high power with a decently heavy weight, etc. But I agree, too light to really drive maximal strength increases. And not the most efficient way to drive aerobic conditioning. They do, however, continue to bring benefits towards your goal of "improve the workload I can maintain for 30-60 min" and that has a lot of carryover to life and physical condition.

 

[Reuben B]

@wespom9 Makes sense. I know for me 32kg x 4 reps every minute gives about a 15bpm spread around the avg HR. That HR stabilizes and lactate never really climbs much over baseline. Or 40kg x 3 reps OTM is similar. In my mind that is A&A training. I've gone up to 40kg x 5 reps every two minutes. That had a spread as much as 35-40bpm and steadily increasing avg. I haven't tested it, but I'd be surprised if lactate stayed <2. When I read about people taking 2-3min between sets I wonder if they are bouncing back and forth between Zs 2&3 more so than pure "alactic" work? Maybe arguing semantics, but it's also a significant difference in what weight I use. That has to impact what is driving people's adaptations.

@Mark Limbaga My current goal is to have 32kg X5 OTM be my sustainable A&A weight. Currently at x4 OTM. At 5 I will be able to check my personal accomplishment box and pick a new goal. but I've stalled hard lately.

@Anna C Hands are my main issue. 30min of snatching several times a week plus much lower strength work is about all I can sustain week in and out. Wondering if saving my hands for the heavier work would be more beneficial. But no reason I can't continue to balance it.
I still think A&A snatches are a good marker for my goals. But I've stalled and am not sure what will drive progress again.
Appreciate everyone's input!

 

[Anna C]

I've gone up to 40kg x 5 reps every two minutes. That had a spread as much as 35-40bpm and steadily increasing avg. I haven't tested it, but I'd be surprised if lactate stayed <2. When I read about people taking 2-3min between sets I wonder if they are bouncing back and forth between Zs 2&3 more so than pure "alactic" work? Maybe arguing semantics, but it's also a significant difference in what weight I use. That has to impact what is driving people's adaptations.

Are you actually testing lactate with a meter during training? I bet you have some really interesting data, if so. I only did that once and I learned a lot. That was in the very early days of A+A protocols and I was doing 5 heavy 1H swings, but my lactate did go up towards 4.0 and hovered there, with my HR going up to the high 140s at the peaks. At the end of the test session I did push the pace and that's when it went up to 5.2, and correspondingly, my HR went up towards 170. I'm not sure what it would have been in my later years of A+A snatching, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was up to 4. Just wasn't increasing over 4.

I'm thinking perhaps you're taking the A+A a bit more literally than many people do who do A+A. As with other types of "anti-glycolytic training" (AGT), there is some glycolysis, it's just that it avoids deep and prolonged glycolysis.

Also a 15 bpm spread sounds low, around avg HR, unless you mean 15 + and 15 -. For heavy A+A I would typically get more like a 30 or even 40 bpm spread around avg HR.

All this to say, you might consider pushing the reps per repeat a bit more than you have been, with the same total volume of lifts (determined by what your hands can handle).

 

[Starlord]

My question: For those beyond the beginner stages of aerobic development. Do you still see A&A as the best use of your time? Or should I just do steady state for aerobic development, and heavier snatches with longer rests for strength and specific conditioning?

Context: I started kettlebell training with S&S up to timed solid. For the past year I have predominantly done A&A style swings or snatches (typically on the minute.) I regulate it by heart rate based off drift tests. I have done a few lactate tests to confirm that, for me at least, that is in the ballpark of consistent low lactate levels. Initially I was very happy with the results. But as the volume needed to make progress crept up, I started having to do steady state walks or steps to get around hand/joint wear and tear. I estimate I need a minimal time of around 90min zone 2 work 3-4 times a week to make progress. What I have been doing (when I can find time) is 30min of A&A snatches followed immediately by 60min traditional work. But I am wondering if the lighter snatches are turning into needless wear and tear on hands/joints.

I think A&A snatches are great because of the LACK of wear and tear on the joints.

Sometimes it is prudent to pull back on the optimum method of aerobic development (lots of easy runs) for something that lowers the injury risk.

You could just continuously increase the volume of easy runs. But can you imagine the risk of injury.

The A&A Snatches are a viable alternative. Imagine subbing out 3 of your easy runs for A&A snatches and then when you need to peak your running you sub out thr snatches for more running.

You will be more sensitive to the adaptions from the increased running when you are peaking your running for an event.

Now...you may have no intentions of being really good at running. But this is just an example of how you could utilise A&A snatches to assisted with your aerobic capacity goals.

 

[offwidth]

@Reuben B …

@Starlord provides some very sound advice here.
Some combination of A+A snatches and running is going to be a good approach for your training (‘aerobic’) goals.

 

[Reuben B]

@Anna C Yes, tested with meter. So I have been on the restrictive side of intensity.
@Starlord @offwidth I have been using a mix of A&A sessions and more traditional "cardio" (rucking, incline walking, step ups.) Sometimes separate, sometimes in sequence.
But with the parameters of my A&A sessions it's all basically Z2. Maybe increasing the intensity of some of my A&A work would be enough to get things moving again without messing with a proven strategy.

 

[Starlord]

@Anna C Yes, tested with meter. So I have been on the restrictive side of intensity.
@Starlord @offwidth I have been using a mix of A&A sessions and more traditional "cardio" (rucking, incline walking, step ups.) Sometimes separate, sometimes in sequence.
But with the parameters of my A&A sessions it's all basically Z2. Maybe increasing the intensity of some of my A&A work would be enough to get things moving again without messing with a proven strategy.

I'd start with just structuring the training in a way to ensure you always have at least 4 hours between training modalities.

You have 1 mixed modality training session and 1 monostructured training modality.

So be purely avoiding the interference effect you will have additional gainz in your aerobic capacity.

Note the z in "gainz," that's because we're serious

 

[Anna C]

@Anna C Yes, tested with meter. So I have been on the restrictive side of intensity.

I'd love to see or hear more about the lactate data if you'd like to share or DM.

One of the objectives of the training, IMO, is for the body to get better at handling lactate; shuttling it around to be used in other muscles. So if you avoid producing any significant amount of it (trying not to exceed 2 mmol by very much, for instance), that doesn't challenge that ability. Fluctuating between 2 and 4 will do that. I am pretty sure that's what happens on a bike ride, hike, field game, or many other scenarios. So I wouldn't personally shy away from producing lactate up to 4 mmol during A+A. You just don't want to be accumulating it, exceeding 4.

To clarify, I'm not an exercise physiologist or anything like that... I just find this stuff super interesting and have experimented with it a lot.

 

[Reuben B]

@Anna C
I will DM you today or tomorrow with what I've tested so far. Nothing study worthy for sure, mostly spot checks with various intensities and training types.
Have you read "the science of winning" by Jan Olbrecht? I find it interesting that those that talk about VLmax describe short bursts of intense exercise followed by extensive recovery as glycolytic DEVELOPMENT parameters, which sound awfully similar to ANTI glycolytic parameters.

 

[Anna C]

Have you read "the science of winning" by Jan Olbrecht? I find it interesting that those that talk about VLmax describe short bursts of intense exercise followed by extensive recovery as glycolytic DEVELOPMENT parameters, which sound awfully similar to ANTI glycolytic parameters.

I haven't... and looks like it's $40 on Kindle and I'm no regular swimmer, so I probably won't. But yeah I think it all depends on how intense and prolonged it is. For example, kettlebell snatch test peaking (glycolytic peaking, which I would also call glycolytic development) is several "intervals" of 2 minutes at test pace or a little faster, followed by several minutes of rest, for 3-8 repeats or so.

It's likely the difference between "developing the body's ability to do work without getting into too glycolytic of a state" (AGT; barely dipping into glycolysis) vs. "developing the body's ability to do a lot of work in a glycolytic state" (metcon, glycolytic peaking, etc.) In both cases you're doing hard work then resting, but the state that you're inducing, and then recovering from, is different.