LarryB
Level 7 Valued Member
I believe he doesn’t think we should ever do steady state and can train our bodies via hiit workouts.
Off-Topic Anyone seen this? Criticism of Pavel on Rogan by Bart Kay
- Thread starter 2accidental
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, I think a lot of his critique stems from a misunderstanding of what Pavel means by "training." He thinks because Pavel talked about running, and talked about kettlebell swings (which most people think of as a cardio/endurance tool), that he's talking about how to train for something like a 1 mile run or 2k row or some other type of VO2max type effort. So, what's the most effective way to train for that? Well, push your cardio limits, in the short term, sure. Pavel would agree. But what we're generally referring to as "training" is 1) more like, for life overall, 2) a long term endeavor, taking someone from untrained to trained, and 3) using STRENGTH and POWER training, not just cardio output. People that don't train hardstyle kettlebell like we do don't really get the potential of it... that it's along the spectrum of things like Olympic Lifting that make you stronger and more powerful. Kettlebell training is not just a way to demand energy output and train the cardiovascular system. It's way more than that, if you do it right and train it heavy.
I was disappointed that he never explained his objection to low intensity steady state cardio. I think it's well established that low intensity aerobic activity is good for health and mitochondrial development. And I believe it provides a good base for many other types of training.
For my view and maybe somewhat in agreement with the critique, I don't think acid is generally a problem either, so I would agree with the video there. I think the body can handle it and to some degree that part of AGT theory is a bit overblown. Just my opinion. However, I do think AGT training methods are very effective.
So much of this hinges around what think of when talking about high intensity intervals. I think they're more in agreement about those being a good thing than it appears.
wespom9
Level 6 Valued Member
I've watched the first 20 minutes so far for context.
I'm a little disappointed in the style of rebuttal. Picking apart, sentence by sentence is unfair without examining the whole thought. A few times I found he ridiculed a few sentences that Pavel then expanded on afterwards. I feel he actually could have had some valid things to say if he did it in this way, rather than his chosen style.
I'm a little fascinated with this guy's take on energy systems. All models are wrong, some are useful; but I can't find anything on the net where he expands on what he said is an "integrated pathway". Anyone find anything?
The SS vs Interval evolutionary argument is fascinating in and of itself. Clear which side this guy is on. I've read valid arguments for both sides and admit to be unsure.
EDIT: Yikes, I got to the part of the "training no longer than your event". I think many successful coaches and athletes might disagree.
I'm a little disappointed in the style of rebuttal. Picking apart, sentence by sentence is unfair without examining the whole thought. A few times I found he ridiculed a few sentences that Pavel then expanded on afterwards. I feel he actually could have had some valid things to say if he did it in this way, rather than his chosen style.
I'm a little fascinated with this guy's take on energy systems. All models are wrong, some are useful; but I can't find anything on the net where he expands on what he said is an "integrated pathway". Anyone find anything?
The SS vs Interval evolutionary argument is fascinating in and of itself. Clear which side this guy is on. I've read valid arguments for both sides and admit to be unsure.
EDIT: Yikes, I got to the part of the "training no longer than your event". I think many successful coaches and athletes might disagree.
coachnathanwhite
Level 6 Valued Member
Yeah, these qualities were not even considered as Mr. Kay was only cherry picking a very brief segment of the interview. Pavel even said at the beginning he was going to give a very broad 50,000 foot view for his explanation. If Mr. Kay decided to enroll in a Strong Endurance seminar I'm sure Pavel would be more than happy to get as technically detailed as possible with his discussion, but that isn't going to happen on the Joe Rogan Podcast.
Dayz
Level 8 Valued Member
I'm sorry but that video and the presenter are horrible. While I'm sure he's largely 'technically' correct, he's prosecuting his argument through ad hominem and strawman arguments. Context is everything. He's analysing a short video from the JRE podcast which is broadcast to millions of people. Pavel explicitly says he's oversimplifying in order to explain training methods to the masses quickly. Even if you want to critique that presentation, there's no need to be mean about it and stoop to insults.
2accidental
Level 5 Valued Member
With all due respect, just because you look away from something you don't like that is happening before you, does not make it not happen anymore.
Whether the video is right, wrong or just for increasing views, no judgement can be passed without actually viewing the thing.
The idiotic cases court judges deal with every day are proof of that, but they still have a hearing.
2accidental
Level 5 Valued Member
I agree. The guy's tone and arrogance grates me but if a criticism -ie the message- is wrong, then here's a chance to rectify it...as much as one would like to shoot the messenger.
Obviously, my posting of this video has struck enough of a nerve to start a conversation. ..and ain't nothing wrong with that!
Kozushi
Level 7 Valued Member
I loved the video! It was very interesting! I learned a lot!
I'm not doing this for pay, hahaha, so I'm just basing my summary on one viewing, but here is what I get from Dr. Kay:
My own reaction:
Dr. Kay,
Where are you getting that elevating your heart rate for long-ish periods of time exercising is a bad thing? This would mean going for a hike or long walk every day or two is terrible for me in the long term. I'm doomed then? Is not going for long walks something natural for humans and our animal ancestors over millions of years? So, walking around all day is going to kill us younger in life? This is a scary thought, and I don't quite understand if you are really telling us this. You might mean something a bit more nuanced, or maybe I'm just "slow" and am not getting what you are saying, sorry.
Maybe you are just saying that even if we _can_ walk for long periods of time, that we do not need to do it for our health, or that since it does not really count as real exercise, we are thus not actually getting proper exercise and thus we are not keeping healthy. Okay. Interesting. You certainly look fit to me, haha! You seem credible at least in this sense! Pavel has written me personally that S&S is perfectly decent "cardio", so Pavel would seem to agree with you here. (I hope I am not misconstruing Pavel's comments here. I think this is what he meant.)
My judo sessions are fairly intense but the actual "very hard work" is probably no more than 40 minutes of a class on average, I suppose. Kendo is a lot more demanding cardio-wise, I've found. But, my heart is kept elevated for hours at both. This is bad for me?
S&S (Pavel's "main programme") is all about reducing rest times to an appropriate amount before the next set, not by getting completely back to a "rested state". Pavel is not saying to start each next set totally fresh. Pavel's "talk test" is a simple way without using some kind of gadget to determine when would be a good time to start the next set _without_ getting too comfortable! Maybe a sports scientist would be able to calculate exact timings between sets or something, but who wants to recalculate some math every single time? Yikes! Pavel's research has determined that the talk test "does the trick". Although, maybe... just maybe this "talk test" method is indeed less efficient (and "too long" an interval) which might be why we do TEN sets instead of 5 in S&S. I definitely feel pretty "worked out" after an S&S session, but with something "left in the tank" for sure! Maybe it's more efficient to totally wipe yourself out for the sake of building strength faster. Maybe S&S is a slower, easier way of building strength. It being easier may be a good thing for a lot of us though! So it takes longer - so what? If it's done with less stress, less potential for injury, and therefore "so what?"
You never said why isometrics is bad. Seems too rigid to me generally, but sometimes having that rigidity is a good thing. I'd like more detail here.
"Calling out" Pavel for saying that such and such a Russian scientist "invented" plyometrics, because actually humans and other animals have been doing plyometrics naturally forever strikes me as a bit of a language trick. This Russian scientist presumably was the first to study it in some scientific way and maybe to give it a name. It's like calling out someone for saying that Bell "discovered" the telephone. But, I'm not going to base my assessment of your assessment of Pavel on the tone or on little slip-ups like this but on what can help me to arrive closer to the truth about exercise. I can get carried away too and mix in silly things with good things in my own arguments. We aren't all perfect creatures.
Conclusion:
Dr. Kay takes issue especially with Pavel's understanding of the chemistry involved in exercise. He seems very confident in his criticisms and gives an appearance of someone well versed in the science. I am ignorant of this science. Pavel has empirical evidence to prove his claims work. The empirical evidence is the only solid evidence we can have. The scientific evidence is certainly helpful, but it is always evolving, and at the end of the day it is the results that count. Whether I rest between sets of S&S because in my own mind it is to let my "lactic acid buildup" reduce down, or whether it's for some other chemical process that has nothing to do with lactic acid but in the end I get my desired results, materially speaking it mattereth not. The science of course matters too, but empirical evidence can be trusted more. In fact, the scientific method must end with empirical evidence and not left with suppositions only. I _do not_ get the impression that Dr. Kay knows much about Pavel's work outside of this one interview, and so his critique is limited to very little of Pavel's work and thought.
If I tried to explain the chemical reason for certain judo drills making you better at judo, I would fail miserably... but the drills would still make you better at judo. I know this from training and fighting in judo since 1988.
I'm not doing this for pay, hahaha, so I'm just basing my summary on one viewing, but here is what I get from Dr. Kay:
- Long steady state cardio training is bad for your health, in fact VERY bad for your health in the long term. Humans are not designed nor evolved for this.
- Humans are designed for short, intense bursts.
- Humans are designed to almost always have their hearts in a non-challenged state, not an elevated state. Thus, sitting at the computer all week is actually the healthy thing to do, with the exception of three 40 minute sessions, one every second day, of 5 sets of very hard busts of exercise.
- Humans get fitter and healthier (in the ways that are related to exercise, obviously not speaking about diet or sleep here, just exercise) through working the hardest possible with the heaviest weight at the highest possible heart rate for brief spurts, i.e. by challenging ourselves.
- Long "easy distance" steady-state cardio training will make muscles smaller and weaker, and basically weaken you overall - not a good thing!
- Getting your heart rate up with heavy weight lifting is perfectly fine. What counts is the heart is pumping hard. So, whether it's by lifting a heavy weight slowly or sprinting as fast as possible, it doesn't matter as far as the heart is concerned. There are not "different types of cardio" - a hard pumping heart from exercise is a hard pumping heart, period.
- Isometrics are BAD for you. "Do not plank" etc... I suppose then that the TGU would not be favoured by Dr. Kay as it is semi-isometric.
- You can still get stronger over time with sub-maximal effort, but it will "take a long time".
- THREE sessions a week (every second day).
- The in-between day is critical for your body to build itself up stronger; you MUST REST every second day. He says. the "real training happens" on this resting day, so to speak, as your body rebuilds itself stronger in response to the challenge of the day before.
- Your training session should be no longer than 40 minutes.
- You should have FIVE short-ish bursts of full effort - if training for an event, then exactly specific to your event. (So, for judo, this would be 5 really hard judo matches!)
- Do NOT give your body time to fully recover before going onto the next set.
- Thus, the last set should feel like you can barely do it at all - I get the impression he is suggesting you won't be able to do as many reps or something like that. He seems almost dismissive of the last set, so this is why I interpret it like this.
My own reaction:
Dr. Kay,
Where are you getting that elevating your heart rate for long-ish periods of time exercising is a bad thing? This would mean going for a hike or long walk every day or two is terrible for me in the long term. I'm doomed then? Is not going for long walks something natural for humans and our animal ancestors over millions of years? So, walking around all day is going to kill us younger in life? This is a scary thought, and I don't quite understand if you are really telling us this. You might mean something a bit more nuanced, or maybe I'm just "slow" and am not getting what you are saying, sorry.
Maybe you are just saying that even if we _can_ walk for long periods of time, that we do not need to do it for our health, or that since it does not really count as real exercise, we are thus not actually getting proper exercise and thus we are not keeping healthy. Okay. Interesting. You certainly look fit to me, haha! You seem credible at least in this sense! Pavel has written me personally that S&S is perfectly decent "cardio", so Pavel would seem to agree with you here. (I hope I am not misconstruing Pavel's comments here. I think this is what he meant.)
My judo sessions are fairly intense but the actual "very hard work" is probably no more than 40 minutes of a class on average, I suppose. Kendo is a lot more demanding cardio-wise, I've found. But, my heart is kept elevated for hours at both. This is bad for me?
S&S (Pavel's "main programme") is all about reducing rest times to an appropriate amount before the next set, not by getting completely back to a "rested state". Pavel is not saying to start each next set totally fresh. Pavel's "talk test" is a simple way without using some kind of gadget to determine when would be a good time to start the next set _without_ getting too comfortable! Maybe a sports scientist would be able to calculate exact timings between sets or something, but who wants to recalculate some math every single time? Yikes! Pavel's research has determined that the talk test "does the trick". Although, maybe... just maybe this "talk test" method is indeed less efficient (and "too long" an interval) which might be why we do TEN sets instead of 5 in S&S. I definitely feel pretty "worked out" after an S&S session, but with something "left in the tank" for sure! Maybe it's more efficient to totally wipe yourself out for the sake of building strength faster. Maybe S&S is a slower, easier way of building strength. It being easier may be a good thing for a lot of us though! So it takes longer - so what? If it's done with less stress, less potential for injury, and therefore "so what?"
You never said why isometrics is bad. Seems too rigid to me generally, but sometimes having that rigidity is a good thing. I'd like more detail here.
"Calling out" Pavel for saying that such and such a Russian scientist "invented" plyometrics, because actually humans and other animals have been doing plyometrics naturally forever strikes me as a bit of a language trick. This Russian scientist presumably was the first to study it in some scientific way and maybe to give it a name. It's like calling out someone for saying that Bell "discovered" the telephone. But, I'm not going to base my assessment of your assessment of Pavel on the tone or on little slip-ups like this but on what can help me to arrive closer to the truth about exercise. I can get carried away too and mix in silly things with good things in my own arguments. We aren't all perfect creatures.
Conclusion:
Dr. Kay takes issue especially with Pavel's understanding of the chemistry involved in exercise. He seems very confident in his criticisms and gives an appearance of someone well versed in the science. I am ignorant of this science. Pavel has empirical evidence to prove his claims work. The empirical evidence is the only solid evidence we can have. The scientific evidence is certainly helpful, but it is always evolving, and at the end of the day it is the results that count. Whether I rest between sets of S&S because in my own mind it is to let my "lactic acid buildup" reduce down, or whether it's for some other chemical process that has nothing to do with lactic acid but in the end I get my desired results, materially speaking it mattereth not. The science of course matters too, but empirical evidence can be trusted more. In fact, the scientific method must end with empirical evidence and not left with suppositions only. I _do not_ get the impression that Dr. Kay knows much about Pavel's work outside of this one interview, and so his critique is limited to very little of Pavel's work and thought.
If I tried to explain the chemical reason for certain judo drills making you better at judo, I would fail miserably... but the drills would still make you better at judo. I know this from training and fighting in judo since 1988.
Last edited:
Kozushi
Level 7 Valued Member
I quite enjoyed the video, thank you.
Tbone77
Level 4 Valued Member
Is this true? Interestingly enough I just finished reading some material that alludes to this.Dr Kenneth Cooper, I believe he coined the term “aerobics”, somewhat recently has changed his mind on LSD- type training as well.In a nutshell what I read was that the body figures out the most efficient ways of performing an activity and will take muscle mass and strength from other areas to make the activity performed easier on the body.Does this mean I should not do long slow distance jogging/ running?I know it can create a lot of wear and tear on the body and have been told unless I’m training for a long distance event, avoid it.The literature I read states that short strength training sessions give you the most return on investment and overall health and aging. I’m so confused....
Kozushi
Level 7 Valued Member
I'm confused too and perturbed.
Without knowing any more at the moment, I think that a 75 minute walk is not long enough to do damage. Pavel's advice to me was to walk "fast!" To my knowledge, Pavel knows all about the downsides to doing too much too-easy long-distance stuff. And is a brisk walk really "too easy"??? I'm going to say NO! I'd like some clarity from Dr. Kay or anyone on this point.
We had a good debate about the value of walking a few years ago on this forum, and when all the charts and graphs were laid out and the debate was over, the "take away" from it is that several hours (like 3 to 4 I think) a week are good for you but more than this is not doing anything for you. So, to add the tidbits of wisdom from Dr. Kay onto this, my current "guess" until I find out more is that while 4-ish hours of walking a week are good for you, and several more than this are not adding anything (so let's say 8 total), then something like 12 hours a week might start to be a bit counterproductive where you start losing muscle mass and stuff. This is just a working framework pseudo-hypothesis for now.
I don't actually think Dr. Kay is telling us not to go out for a few good walks a week necessarily, he may be just telling us not to go out for long-distance runs, and that an hour's walk is nothing compared to a good S&S-type session.
I do get the impression that Dr. Kay would like S&S if he knew what it was. It seems like it is nearly precisely what he is advocating. The 2.0 book suggests you do S&S every second day on average, and that you work pretty hard when you do it, the whole session taking between 30 and 40 minutes normally speaking.
And, I'll add the disclaimer that I have not been out for a lot of walks these past few months. S&S seems to be keeping me in good condition by itself mostly. Still, there are other benefits to walking - I suspect spinal alignment can get corrected, and other funny little things in the physiology with walking - the kinds of things that specialized biochemists are not going to notice but which chiropractors and coaches "on the ground" actually dealing with exercise in their face day to day are.
Someone telling me that walking several hours a week is bad for me had better have some pretty strong empirical proof. For right now, I'm a bit perturbed, but I'm going to go with my instincts and keep walking!!!
MikeL
Level 6 Valued Member
The body adj
the body adjusts over time for the task set to it. If you look at various National level athletes you’ll notice theyre developed for their task. A long distance runner will have lean, light legs because the body has to move the damn things repeatedly. A sprinter can afford more mass to allow speed.
i don’t concur that long walks etc are bad for you. Experience says otherwise. However long steady efforts can create a huge stress demand on the body, spike cortisol and damage the body’s ability to repair. So a long walk isn’t bad, but you do a sunrise to sunset hike daily for a week + and feel ok? No you’ll be exhausted. Sometimes this is worthwhile for other goals though. Perhaps the comparison is better to completing an ultra event. Running is an easy analogy but I’ll use kayaking. After a 24 hour kayaking event I will be utterly destroyed. For a week plus. The stress demand is huge and it’s done nothing for my fitness by the end. What it has given me is the mental and physical toughness I am seeking, and to train for it gave me fitness the event didnt. A worthwhile trade off, in my opinion.
the body adjusts over time for the task set to it. If you look at various National level athletes you’ll notice theyre developed for their task. A long distance runner will have lean, light legs because the body has to move the damn things repeatedly. A sprinter can afford more mass to allow speed.
i don’t concur that long walks etc are bad for you. Experience says otherwise. However long steady efforts can create a huge stress demand on the body, spike cortisol and damage the body’s ability to repair. So a long walk isn’t bad, but you do a sunrise to sunset hike daily for a week + and feel ok? No you’ll be exhausted. Sometimes this is worthwhile for other goals though. Perhaps the comparison is better to completing an ultra event. Running is an easy analogy but I’ll use kayaking. After a 24 hour kayaking event I will be utterly destroyed. For a week plus. The stress demand is huge and it’s done nothing for my fitness by the end. What it has given me is the mental and physical toughness I am seeking, and to train for it gave me fitness the event didnt. A worthwhile trade off, in my opinion.
Chrisdavisjr
Level 7 Valued Member
Fair point.
North Coast Miller
Level 9 Valued Member
He panned isometrics and LISS...? Has this man trained himself or others to a high level of fitness?
Criticsm of the science theory is one thing, pretending it doesn't get results or that there is only one correct way to train is idiotic. I'm sorry.
max1993
Level 4 Valued Member
I totally agree with Kozushi on that one, especially regarding Barts' view on training in general. He himself seems largely biased by what he is preaching, always referring critical/interested commentators to his online coaching. I definitely wouldn't jump on the bandwagon of HIIT because he's "bashing" steady-state cardio here.
Now a personal section: I believe HIIT can produce great results but at a much higher cost than steady-state cardio, even anecdotal evidence is valid here, HIIT just sucks (physically and mentally because it's just so taxing) and if you don't get enough regeneration you'll just end up sick every few weeks. Scientific evidence wise it's still an open case I would argue, there definitely is a place for HIIT but I haven't come across anything too convincing right now. So if you want to train your phosphate system - short intense bursts, followed by enough recovery to offset H+ accumulation (this has definetly been well covered by numerous individuals, and I think Pavel aswell). So @Kozashi I'm with you on your instinctive path!
I merely wanted to give Bart the benefit of the doubt on this one, leaving his way of commenting short snippets out of the way for now (that's just a no-no, especially if you want to be taken seriously). Still he brought up some fair points and I think this is still a valuable thread, as it provoced a number of people, which weren't attacked by anyone. No one had to rush for the defense of Pavel, maybe he was wrong in some things he said on this podcast which doesn't automatically devaluate everything Pavel has ever done or said.
Just keep an open mind, Pavel can and will be wrong, you can and will be wrong, I can and will be wrong.
Just don't let dogma guide your believes.
Now a personal section: I believe HIIT can produce great results but at a much higher cost than steady-state cardio, even anecdotal evidence is valid here, HIIT just sucks (physically and mentally because it's just so taxing) and if you don't get enough regeneration you'll just end up sick every few weeks. Scientific evidence wise it's still an open case I would argue, there definitely is a place for HIIT but I haven't come across anything too convincing right now. So if you want to train your phosphate system - short intense bursts, followed by enough recovery to offset H+ accumulation (this has definetly been well covered by numerous individuals, and I think Pavel aswell). So @Kozashi I'm with you on your instinctive path!
I merely wanted to give Bart the benefit of the doubt on this one, leaving his way of commenting short snippets out of the way for now (that's just a no-no, especially if you want to be taken seriously). Still he brought up some fair points and I think this is still a valuable thread, as it provoced a number of people, which weren't attacked by anyone. No one had to rush for the defense of Pavel, maybe he was wrong in some things he said on this podcast which doesn't automatically devaluate everything Pavel has ever done or said.
Just keep an open mind, Pavel can and will be wrong, you can and will be wrong, I can and will be wrong.
Just don't let dogma guide your believes.
BladesFanUK
Level 5 Valued Member
delete
Last edited:
North Coast Miller
Level 9 Valued Member
If its all you do, the body recomps to become more effective. You will increase slow twitch % and ATP enzyme profile will change to match.
If you strength train as well, most of the changes will be cardiovascular and will support increased muscle mass and athleticism.
Train for the adaptations you want. Don't pretend or fall for the idea the body can be tricked into investing remodelling resources into avenues that haven't been challenged, it won't work.
You will know them by their fruits.
Thanks @max1993, I am only a layman-expert, if that, but I do find exercise physiology fascinating. Having delved into it first as a cyclist - which covers everything from LISS to max power production and all the messy blurred lines in between, I tend to view everything through that lens. Simple language and scientific evidence can point us in the right direction, but the magically complex operations of the human body can never be fully contained within these precise explanations.
- Status