Hi All,
This topic has been something I've been mulling through lately and it became a short topic on my training log with @WhatWouldHulkDo and @Alexander Halford offering some appreciated input. I'd love to hear others' thoughts and experiences, and while this topic cold definitely result in applications to my training, it is not looking for personal training advice itself. I will be using myself to frame the topic, simply because I like using examples.
I recently was listening to Dan John talk about identifying weaknesses in the snatch test, and he broke it down to guns (lockout problems), buns (glute fatigue leading to upper body muscling of the snatch), and lungs (seems obvious to me). His answer to the lungs problem was to do what might be termed now as glycolytic training, or possibly "work capacity" - 2-3 times per week perform 2-3 sets of 100 with a kettlebell that allows you to complete the sets unbroken.
It seems to me that Pavel and StrongFirst have gone very much down the "anti-glycolytic" training method pathway, incorporating short powerful sets followed by plenty of rest, with occasional glycolytic sessions that seem to be more tests; they (or a portion of the coaches) seem to also endorse long slow endurance training (zone 2 work a la Dr. Maffetone) to supplement this.
When (if ever) does it make sense to add in glycolytic sessions as part of a weekly training program and not relegate them to testing only? For instance, being a former strength "athlete," my lungs have - from day 1 of kettlebelling - been my limiting factor. I have been consistently applying Maffetone's training recommendations for about 6 months, and looking back seem to have 6 month "blocks" of LSD-a la-Maffetone focus followed by a year of ... no LSD. I obviously would be one who would see great benefit in long-term consistent LSD training.
I have also noticed that while a year and a half ago I had a hard time completing 100 swings in 5 minutes with even a light weight like the 16kg, now I can easily complete it with the 32kg. So my "lungs" have obviously been increasing by me: 1) getting stronger, 2) getting more technically proficient, and/or 3) building a bigger engine (lungs).
So I suppose I'm looking at this "training puzzle" and see a couple paths:
1. Focus on "anti-glycolytic" style training and see results play out longer-term (e.g. what I've done the past year).
2. Utilize both the anti-glycolytic and glycolytic (e.g. weekly including both, to one degree or another)
3. Focus on glycolytic style training (what is currently popular in a lot of methodologies).
4. Utilize glycolytic training for goal-specific training in blocks (e.g. it seems that escalating density training is not only glycolytic but may also be a way to build hypertrophy with kettlebells; blocks of glycolytic training in preparation for glycolytic events like the 5 minute snatch test)
There may be more but that's kind of the gist of my thoughts. I definitely lean away from #3, but I also see the potential value in #2 and #4, and some coaches I respect (e.g. Dan John) are huge proponents are fairly frequent (weekly or more often) glycolytic sessions to build "lungs" (Dan also is a big proponent of Maffetone, so my understanding of his stance is solidly #2 above).
So to clarify:
1. The answer is "it depends." But I'm asking/thinking about when to incorporate glycolytic training sessions when training yourself or others, and specifically when to use them to target adaptations (either to overcome a limitation or to contribute to a glycolytic goal). For some people this may be never, but why? If glycolytic adaptations can be spurred on by anti-glycolytic training more slowly, when does it make sense cost-wise to use glycolytic training more often to get quicker results?
2. This is NOT a personal request for ideas on how *I* can progress.
3. This is NOT a "Dan John" topic. I use him as an example because he is fairly well known and he is (recently) the individual who has gotten this mental ball rolling.
4. I have not been to any StrongFirst certs, I have read (several times) Quick and the Dead, Simple and Sinister, and Enter the Kettlebell.
This whole post has really served me already, simply by making me think and write and work through ideas. As much as I love "easy" training like my understanding of anti-glycolytic training from reading what Al and Pavel have written, part of me wonders if I'm missing a component to my training. This may be simply because I spent 8 years NOT training LSD - or training it very infrequently - and not even training glycolytically during that period either - for most of that period I was in the "if its more than 5 its cardio, and I don't do cardio." So would the answer for the frequency of LSD, AGT, and glycolytic training depend based on training history? If we took an ultra runner who never trains outside of zone 2, a HIIT junky who always trains HIIT in the most met-con way, and a - say - olympic weightlifter who almost never trains for more than 5 reps and always has plenty of rest between sets ... how would our prescriptions be different, assuming their goals were to get better at their preferred activities (ultras, metcons, weightlifting)?
Alright I'm done thinking out loud. Thanks for humoring me, I recently reentered Quarantine so have a little free time on my hands to think. Dangerous times (thinking, that is).
This topic has been something I've been mulling through lately and it became a short topic on my training log with @WhatWouldHulkDo and @Alexander Halford offering some appreciated input. I'd love to hear others' thoughts and experiences, and while this topic cold definitely result in applications to my training, it is not looking for personal training advice itself. I will be using myself to frame the topic, simply because I like using examples.
I recently was listening to Dan John talk about identifying weaknesses in the snatch test, and he broke it down to guns (lockout problems), buns (glute fatigue leading to upper body muscling of the snatch), and lungs (seems obvious to me). His answer to the lungs problem was to do what might be termed now as glycolytic training, or possibly "work capacity" - 2-3 times per week perform 2-3 sets of 100 with a kettlebell that allows you to complete the sets unbroken.
It seems to me that Pavel and StrongFirst have gone very much down the "anti-glycolytic" training method pathway, incorporating short powerful sets followed by plenty of rest, with occasional glycolytic sessions that seem to be more tests; they (or a portion of the coaches) seem to also endorse long slow endurance training (zone 2 work a la Dr. Maffetone) to supplement this.
When (if ever) does it make sense to add in glycolytic sessions as part of a weekly training program and not relegate them to testing only? For instance, being a former strength "athlete," my lungs have - from day 1 of kettlebelling - been my limiting factor. I have been consistently applying Maffetone's training recommendations for about 6 months, and looking back seem to have 6 month "blocks" of LSD-a la-Maffetone focus followed by a year of ... no LSD. I obviously would be one who would see great benefit in long-term consistent LSD training.
I have also noticed that while a year and a half ago I had a hard time completing 100 swings in 5 minutes with even a light weight like the 16kg, now I can easily complete it with the 32kg. So my "lungs" have obviously been increasing by me: 1) getting stronger, 2) getting more technically proficient, and/or 3) building a bigger engine (lungs).
So I suppose I'm looking at this "training puzzle" and see a couple paths:
1. Focus on "anti-glycolytic" style training and see results play out longer-term (e.g. what I've done the past year).
2. Utilize both the anti-glycolytic and glycolytic (e.g. weekly including both, to one degree or another)
3. Focus on glycolytic style training (what is currently popular in a lot of methodologies).
4. Utilize glycolytic training for goal-specific training in blocks (e.g. it seems that escalating density training is not only glycolytic but may also be a way to build hypertrophy with kettlebells; blocks of glycolytic training in preparation for glycolytic events like the 5 minute snatch test)
There may be more but that's kind of the gist of my thoughts. I definitely lean away from #3, but I also see the potential value in #2 and #4, and some coaches I respect (e.g. Dan John) are huge proponents are fairly frequent (weekly or more often) glycolytic sessions to build "lungs" (Dan also is a big proponent of Maffetone, so my understanding of his stance is solidly #2 above).
So to clarify:
1. The answer is "it depends." But I'm asking/thinking about when to incorporate glycolytic training sessions when training yourself or others, and specifically when to use them to target adaptations (either to overcome a limitation or to contribute to a glycolytic goal). For some people this may be never, but why? If glycolytic adaptations can be spurred on by anti-glycolytic training more slowly, when does it make sense cost-wise to use glycolytic training more often to get quicker results?
2. This is NOT a personal request for ideas on how *I* can progress.
3. This is NOT a "Dan John" topic. I use him as an example because he is fairly well known and he is (recently) the individual who has gotten this mental ball rolling.
4. I have not been to any StrongFirst certs, I have read (several times) Quick and the Dead, Simple and Sinister, and Enter the Kettlebell.
This whole post has really served me already, simply by making me think and write and work through ideas. As much as I love "easy" training like my understanding of anti-glycolytic training from reading what Al and Pavel have written, part of me wonders if I'm missing a component to my training. This may be simply because I spent 8 years NOT training LSD - or training it very infrequently - and not even training glycolytically during that period either - for most of that period I was in the "if its more than 5 its cardio, and I don't do cardio." So would the answer for the frequency of LSD, AGT, and glycolytic training depend based on training history? If we took an ultra runner who never trains outside of zone 2, a HIIT junky who always trains HIIT in the most met-con way, and a - say - olympic weightlifter who almost never trains for more than 5 reps and always has plenty of rest between sets ... how would our prescriptions be different, assuming their goals were to get better at their preferred activities (ultras, metcons, weightlifting)?
Alright I'm done thinking out loud. Thanks for humoring me, I recently reentered Quarantine so have a little free time on my hands to think. Dangerous times (thinking, that is).
