Kettlebell Aesthetics

[pet']

Hello,

Sure work ethic helps, as @Bro Mo said.

Then this is a matter of form and function. Do we want to look good only ? Do we want to "perform" good while hoping good form will follow good function ?

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[North Coast Miller]

@Bro Mo
Amen.
I think my aesthetic is pretty good considering the effort I put into it.

I do virtually 100% compound exercises, train at home with no barbells, no cables, and am pretty far from eating clean. If I spent 5 days/week in a well stocked gym, loaded up on creatine, chopped out the beers and extra calories - in short if I did the stuff I know I need to do to get better aesthetic results, then I'd get better aesthetic results.

Instead I get the results I train for...

This isn't rocket science, and if you're already strong and have some mass, the toughest part is really behind you. All about the goals.

 

[Bret S.]

I hope this doesn't rub anyone the wrong way - because it's not intended to - but we are starting to sound like a bunch of whiners with excuses for why we don't look like movie super heros. PEDs aren't some miracle jacked formula and for the most part simply enhance the recovery in order to do more work in less time but still require the work to be done. The important part is that WE HAVE TO DO THE WORK! We all would look like heros if we put in the work for it.

Unfortunately, as a collective, we think 100 swings and 10 TGUs should be enough work to get there but it's not. It takes a lot of effort and demand to create the hero body and we just aren't putting in the required Specific Adaptation Imposed Demand (SAID) to create it. Most likely, because we don't need it. If it's not necessary, it's not necessary but at the end of the day the body will look like the performance that's demanded of it.

For me it's a lifestyle choice, I was big and muscular but now prefer lean/strong..

I move better, faster and with less effort, my kicks, blocks, punches and movement are much better. Now jumping, running .. pretty much everything is better.
The Brolin trainer is big but looks clunky doing agility moves IMHO, too much muscle for the sake of it is window dressing and a pain to maintain. Now I can miss meals if needed and not freak out, or look in the mirror in the am to see how I'm looking that day. I'm not bragging but I get lots of looks and respect being cut and older with a decent amount of muscle, especially from the younger fit crowd.
I do like some muscle.. just not excess non strength related stuff. A little is good..

 

[Shahaf Levin]

This isn't rocket science

Actually it is exactly like rocket science... You get the results you work for...

 

[dc]

Unfortunately, as a collective, we think 100 swings and 10 TGUs should be enough work to get there but it's not

100 swings & 10 TGU, & a hero to an 8yr old son, I’m happy.

 

[User 6372]

I've read HGH is more popular due to less chance of acne. But whatever.

We might consider leaving Hollywood out of the discussions, give the PED usage and the fact that, yeah, if you pay me millions of dollars to star in big budget movie, besides ingesting anything under the sun, I will also dedicate multiple hours a day to training, wake up in the middle of the night to feed, and do other things that are out of the reach of a normal person.

Also, I don't trust the youtube clips or articles in Men's Health that purport to show the star's 'training regimes.' Those are just commercials for the movie. I wouldn't assume that's what the actor actually did. Maybe it is or maybe it isn't. It's boring to say 'I did 3x10 for the big lifts for six months with tons of accessory movements." It's cooler to show them doing something funky.

I’ll see if I can find an article where a former bodybuilder admits to doing just that when submitting routines to Flex or other publications. I think I know where the issue is.

 

[J Petersen]

I feel compelled to interject on behalf of Josh Brolin. Since his breakout role more than three decades ago (in which his fitness was showcased front and center), this is obviously a man who takes his training seriously, and would never allow himself to settle for "good enuf."

 

[North Coast Miller]

This isn't rocket science

Actually it is exactly like rocket science... You get the results you work for...

Minus the possibility of blowing up your garage! Or as Wernher von Braun used to say "I aim for the stars, but sometimes I hit London."

 

[User 6372]

It’s all well and good to go “well that’s Hollywood.” I don’t buy that. I’m seeing lots of in shape, muscular older people here. PEDs take away from that. I’m assuming everyone here is natty. People will look at @North Coast Miller for example and be like “what’s he taking?” That’s not right. That’s why I wish people we honest. It diminishes those who are.

 

[pet']

Hello,

In both litterature and real world (considering old time strong men), most of them seem to work daily. Then it seems programming is important.

Back then, science was not as advanced as nowadays.

Then, considering aesthetics and performance, would it be "better" to do a 30 minutes daily training (for example) or 60 minutes, on alternate days ? In both cases, total training time and volume is supposed to be the same.

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[Shahaf Levin]

Then, considering aesthetics and performance, would it be "better" to do a 30 minutes daily training (for example) or 60 minutes, on alternate days ? In both cases, total training time and volume is supposed to be the same.

If we look at two Justa singles program - daily vs. every-other-day we see that the daily routine has 63 lifts a week and the EOD 105 lift a week. That 1.67 time more volume. I chose two Justa's singles routine to compare apples to apples. Justa's programs seems to focus on the skill side of strength.

 

[pet']

Hello,

@Shahaf Levin
Does the "cardio" effect effect plays a role ? Indeed, if we perform more lift per day of training, we are supposed to make a longer effort during the training day. I guess this plays a role regarding body composition ?

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[JCavin]

I agree with Bro Mo.

I came to a similar conclusion recently and started doing my own thing with regards to S&S.

I alternate S&S and running every single day. I also do the fighter pull up program, as many incline and regular pushups as I can get in throughout the day(usually end up around 250), I do a minimum standard amount of ring dips(meaning that I do the same every day, but once I hit a number, say 10, that’s the new baseline daily), daily ab wheels, 3x weekly sets of 50 curls, all while training for my first marathon.

Does it suck? Oh yes. But, the way I look at it is if I were strapped for cash and I HAD to get a new physical labor job like hanging drywall for 12 hours a day I would be sore, exhausted, and hate it, but I’d show up every single day until it was easy because I HAVE to.

Don’t see why training is any different. Aesthetically, I’m in the best shape of my life now.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Hello,

@Shahaf Levin
Does the "cardio" effect effect plays a role ? Indeed, if we perform more lift per day of training, we are supposed to make a longer effort during the training day. I guess this plays a role regarding body composition ?

Kind regards,

Pet'

Inverse relationship between volume and intensity. If one trains twice as hard half as often, or trains less hard more often might very well come back to individual response. Training outcome should be very similar up to a point. I believe the cardio aspect kicks in when both volume and intensity are high (relative to resistance training), but both need to be measured with care. This especially true when higher RM loads are mixed in as well.


Very interesting some of the HIT research showed that training adapted people could literally outwork their recovery in a single session - they effectively detrain before they are truly recovered. This is not going to happen accidentally though.

On the other side of the coin it has been demonstrated you can get a lot of size boost using very low %RM loads if taken to failure, but the volume and training time is multiples of working with higher loads. And then you still need to work in some high RM work or your top end strength gains are minimal. For aesthetics (or adventure swordsmen) top end strength probably not that important as long as getting swole is not on the agenda - more of a Brad Pitt "Fight Club" physique. You could argue this is also true of daily life for most of us.

I like to use a rough estimate of % training time spent at what % intensity - defined as amount of effort expended relative to 100% - loosely tied to %RM but not completely. %RM is almost an independent training variable in my philosophy.

More volume + more variety = more body comp effect. More volume + less variety = more skill (depending on what is being done). And then we should be careful about how we use the term "volume".


This article from Stronger by Science is also a good read with some relate to the topic - not an actual training protocol, but they used only two variables - volume and what they termed "reps in reserve" RIR. this is a neat phrase I might try to incorporate into my training instead of just "leave one in the tank". RIR = 3 vs RIR < 1 gives a real good idea of perceived intensity.

A Thorough Breakdown of the “Extreme Volume Study” • Stronger by Science

 

[pet']

Hello,

@North Coast Miller
This study summary tends to confirm what you are saying:
"Effects of Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of low- versus high-load resistance training (RT) on muscular adaptations in well-trained subjects. Eighteen young men experienced in RT were matched according to baseline strength and then randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental groups: a low-load RT routine (LL) where 25-35 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9) or a high-load RT routine (HL) where 8-12 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9). During each session, subjects in both groups performed 3 sets of 7 different exercises representing all major muscles. Training was performed 3 times per week on nonconsecutive days, for a total of 8 weeks. Both HL and LL conditions produced significant increases in thickness of the elbow flexors (5.3 vs. 8.6%, respectively), elbow extensors (6.0 vs. 5.2%, respectively), and quadriceps femoris (9.3 vs. 9.5%, respectively), with no significant differences noted between groups. Improvements in back squat strength were significantly greater for HL compared with LL (19.6 vs. 8.8%, respectively), and there was a trend for greater increases in 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press (6.5 vs. 2.0%, respectively). Upper body muscle endurance (assessed by the bench press at 50% 1RM to failure) improved to a greater extent in LL compared with HL (16.6 vs. -1.2%, respectively). These findings indicate that both HL and LL training to failure can elicit significant increases in muscle hypertrophy among well-trained young men; however, HL training is superior for maximizing strength adaptations."
Source: Effects of Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men. - PubMed - NCBI

So to a certain extent, the higher the rep, the lower the additional gain

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[Shahaf Levin]

Hello,

@Shahaf Levin
Does the "cardio" effect effect plays a role ? Indeed, if we perform more lift per day of training, we are supposed to make a longer effort during the training day. I guess this plays a role regarding body composition ?

Kind regards,

Pet'

The programs I mentioned are aimed for skill strength so the volume is derived from recovery abilities. While aerobic conditioning is a factor in recovery Justa's routines are mostly around 70%-80% 1RM so recovery is not suppose to be an issue. I don't know how it plays a role in body composition. My take on that is that if you lift for skill and strength and eat like an adult your body composition will take care of itself.

 

[North Coast Miller]

@pet'

More food for thought:
Strength and Hypertrophy Adaptations Between Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. - PubMed - NCBI

Gains in 1RM strength were significantly greater in favor of high- vs. low-load training, whereas no significant differences were found for isometric strength between conditions.

To me, this almost implies that any increase in size no matter how it is gained yields (can yield) a similar increase in non-specific strength, and the ability to apply that strength is almost entirely skill specific (?!!).

Or, that Isometric strength application is not effected by changes in tendon density/elasticity (which doesn't makes any sense to me). Not that this explanation or any other for that matter, for increased limit strength at certain rep/load ranges has ever been proven anyway.

So maybe old timey strong men who did incredible feats of strength built with lower loads/higher intensity and then learned the skill to apply it to specific feats. But some of the stuff they did doesn't sound all that specific. Hmmmm....

 

[pet']

Hello,

@North Coast Miller
This is very interesting. I tend to confirm the study you mention. Indeed, when I trained with very daily high reps, it led me to a more than half bdw bent press (after a few training sessions to dial / re-dial my technique) and half press.

When I stop this high rep training, I tend to also lose a little volume (but not that much). Nonetheless, low rep high load sure makes me lift heavier that my high rep thing.

The high rep training, on the other hand, maintain (but not increase, at least to a certain extent) my maximal strength.

This leads me to the conclusion that behind any impressive physical strength feat, there is a lot of technique learning.

This confirms your wide variety rep range:
Tip: Vary Rep Range to Grow | T Nation

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[guardian7]

Hello,

@North Coast Miller
This is very interesting. I tend to confirm the study you mention. Indeed, when I trained with very daily high reps, it led me to a more than half bdw bent press (after a few training sessions to dial / re-dial my technique) and half press.

When I stop this high rep training, I tend to also lose a little volume (but not that much). Nonetheless, low rep high load sure makes me lift heavier that my high rep thing.

The high rep training, on the other hand, maintain (but not increase, at least to a certain extent) my maximal strength.

This leads me to the conclusion that behind any impressive physical strength feat, there is a lot of technique learning.

This confirms your wide variety rep range:
Tip: Vary Rep Range to Grow | T Nation

Kind regards,

Pet'

This issue of rep range variation is a very important one not often discussed. I got it from a maybe this article a while ago. This is why I think combining barbell, kettlebell, bodyweight, and dumbells is optimal. I will sometimes finish KB goblet squats or front squats with bodyweight or use all rep ranges with cable rows while pyramiding down 1-15. I don't understand the reasoning with straight sets of the same number of reps unless it is sub-maximal like SF style to keep rep quality. I also recommend two handed power swings before deadlift (not many) and light easy two handed swings after deadlift. It seems to activate and then reduce soreness/improve recovery. I have no empirical evidence. It just seems to work for me. You could call it a hinge pump.

 

[North Coast Miller]

In general, I have always found I get best result using a range of loading and rep/set whenever practical. When I have tried to concentrate on only low rep/high load I make a small initial bump and then it tends to stagnate.

If I use high rep (for me) strategy I find my upper limit drops a bit and also my build will shrink. If I allow some 10-15lbs to come off I adapt to this readily enough, so body comp relative to some genetic/epigenetic (?) marker probably is kicking in. Over time my non-specific limit strength will decline even more but this might just be due to the loss of mass.

If I want to maintain or increase size and still have good limit strength I have to train a variety of loading. I have to include more of the higher %RM work to get larger, but then this has to be mixed with some 8-10 rep work. I also tend to include drop sets with my 3-5 rep sets, turning them into 10-12 rep sets. This increase in intensity means fewer of these sets.

I don't periodize upper body much anymore, rather work a range of loading every session, with emphasis at one or other end of load/rep range. But this is due to the tools I'm using - if I were to default back to 100% sandbag training I'd be altering by the day.

As I get older I've had to change it up, still looking for that minimum effective dose and believe I'm narrowing it down pretty well based on what I can recover from, and still get a good bit of variety.

Changing it up does seem to help recovery and enhance adaptive response. I believe this ties in to specificity and becoming good at what we do - consequently not improving at what we don't do, or needing huge surplus to do so.