Kettlebell Dice Rolled Training Article - Perfectly Timed
- Thread starter LoneRider
- Start date
- Status
LoneRider
Level 6 Valued Member
@Arryn Grogan.
Thank you once again for the food for thought.
For the squats I rather like what @Manuel Fortin suggested below for 5 or 6, since I've not really consistently attempted uneven loaded front squats/squats period. Most of my KB squats are either goblet or double front squats:
For the 5 and 6 with the above I'm considering using the 24KG plus a 16KG for the '5' and a 32KG plus a 24KG for the '6' in that plan, at relatively lower volumes.
Thank you once again for the food for thought.
For the squats I rather like what @Manuel Fortin suggested below for 5 or 6, since I've not really consistently attempted uneven loaded front squats/squats period. Most of my KB squats are either goblet or double front squats:
For the 5 and 6 with the above I'm considering using the 24KG plus a 16KG for the '5' and a 32KG plus a 24KG for the '6' in that plan, at relatively lower volumes.
ali
Level 7 Valued Member
I've just run some numbers through a random number generator. That's the kind of evening I'm having before watching politics for the rest of the night and watch a government fall apart. So exciting stuff.....
So totally random.
6 kettlebellers doing a dice roll for 3 times a week for 3 months. So a run of 36 put through the number cruncher 6 times.....totally random fluctuations.
Every side, presumably with unloaded dice, has a 1 in 6 chance of showing.
Numbered from left to right representing the number of times it rolled out of 36.
Number of rolls in order of sides: 1 2 3 4 5 6
kb1. 6 5 5 7 2 11
kb2. 6 6 6 5 8 5
kb3. 5 7 6 9 4 5
kb4. 6 4 8 5 4 9
kb5. 5 4 5 7 10 5
kb6. 7 8 10 5 3 3
So, if a roll of 6 was very hard, 1 easy, 3 or 4 medium and 2/5 somewhat easy/hard respectively then kb1 had more harder sessions than kb6 who had very few.
If kb6 was looking for some intensity, it didn't happen meanwhile kb1 put a shoulder out.
Random fluctuations - surely better to remove doubt and uncertainty, isn't it?
You could argue that if you were feeling good/bad you could autoregulate on the day by ignoring the dice and doing what you feel like doing. Or not doing the same session the following day. Fine. Or wave other variables.
All you are doing then is taking out the random fluctuations as you go.....which is exactly the same outcome as taking them out before!!
S0 36 sessions with a dice, you will have 6 groups of 6 different intensities spread in wave form more or less equally not unlike kb2, 6 6 6 5 8 5. That is 5 session at highest intensity, 8 somewhat hard, 6 easy etc. So that's a little better, maybe, a little more even.
To get a more even representation of equal ranges of 6 6 6 6 6 6......that is indeed the 'near to' the end result of running the number cruncher 200, 000 times to remove random fluctuation.
So, the question is do you want randomness? If the desire is to produce an unpredictable wave, then yes, go for it. But bear in mind that due to unpredictability it may have an undesired unpredictable outcome of being too easy or too hard. As you can see from just 6 runs they are all different.
If you want an mix of easy, medium and hard in waveform is it better to do as such rather than leave it to randomness which may well end up hard, hard, hard unless you do it thousands of times? To be fair, many do!
My case for predictable uncertainty, m'lud.....
by the way, anyone up for a game of backgammon?
So totally random.
6 kettlebellers doing a dice roll for 3 times a week for 3 months. So a run of 36 put through the number cruncher 6 times.....totally random fluctuations.
Every side, presumably with unloaded dice, has a 1 in 6 chance of showing.
Numbered from left to right representing the number of times it rolled out of 36.
Number of rolls in order of sides: 1 2 3 4 5 6
kb1. 6 5 5 7 2 11
kb2. 6 6 6 5 8 5
kb3. 5 7 6 9 4 5
kb4. 6 4 8 5 4 9
kb5. 5 4 5 7 10 5
kb6. 7 8 10 5 3 3
So, if a roll of 6 was very hard, 1 easy, 3 or 4 medium and 2/5 somewhat easy/hard respectively then kb1 had more harder sessions than kb6 who had very few.
If kb6 was looking for some intensity, it didn't happen meanwhile kb1 put a shoulder out.
Random fluctuations - surely better to remove doubt and uncertainty, isn't it?
You could argue that if you were feeling good/bad you could autoregulate on the day by ignoring the dice and doing what you feel like doing. Or not doing the same session the following day. Fine. Or wave other variables.
All you are doing then is taking out the random fluctuations as you go.....which is exactly the same outcome as taking them out before!!
S0 36 sessions with a dice, you will have 6 groups of 6 different intensities spread in wave form more or less equally not unlike kb2, 6 6 6 5 8 5. That is 5 session at highest intensity, 8 somewhat hard, 6 easy etc. So that's a little better, maybe, a little more even.
To get a more even representation of equal ranges of 6 6 6 6 6 6......that is indeed the 'near to' the end result of running the number cruncher 200, 000 times to remove random fluctuation.
So, the question is do you want randomness? If the desire is to produce an unpredictable wave, then yes, go for it. But bear in mind that due to unpredictability it may have an undesired unpredictable outcome of being too easy or too hard. As you can see from just 6 runs they are all different.
If you want an mix of easy, medium and hard in waveform is it better to do as such rather than leave it to randomness which may well end up hard, hard, hard unless you do it thousands of times? To be fair, many do!
My case for predictable uncertainty, m'lud.....
by the way, anyone up for a game of backgammon?
Last edited:
Deleted member 5559
Guest
That's my point actually. If the objective is to simply help health and you can achieve the goal with 20min 3x per week with optimal training; why do 60min 5x per week with less than optimal training. Unless of course it's simply a hobby/pastime in which case optimal translates to enjoyable.
Bauer
Level 8 Valued Member
@Arryn Grogan : Great article!
I have a question regarding stepping a bell up in swings:
Say you are moving up from 24 to 32 or from 32 to 36. How are you going to to 200 swings with a weight that you haven't used that much yet? I mean, in classic S&S you introduce it only one set at a time, so it might take you a couple of weeks before even doing 100 swings with it.
Same with TGU. If I step one bell up, how can I be sure to be able to do 10 TGU per side?
I just can't get my head around this "safety issue". How do you autoregulate if you struggle on a plan like that?
Other than that I believe that rolling the die is a nice way to program variability.
I have a question regarding stepping a bell up in swings:
Say you are moving up from 24 to 32 or from 32 to 36. How are you going to to 200 swings with a weight that you haven't used that much yet? I mean, in classic S&S you introduce it only one set at a time, so it might take you a couple of weeks before even doing 100 swings with it.
Same with TGU. If I step one bell up, how can I be sure to be able to do 10 TGU per side?
I just can't get my head around this "safety issue". How do you autoregulate if you struggle on a plan like that?
Other than that I believe that rolling the die is a nice way to program variability.
Manuel Fortin
Level 6 Valued Member
@ali Interesting. I thought that the variability between runs would be smaller, but I reran what you did and it is indeed the case. I'm still not sure that one of the training cycles you get will be better than the other for most cases, but I see your point.
Note that the trainee who has more "hard" sessions will have less volume, so he may not be training way harder. I have run many Strongfirst programs, from Soju and Tuba that has you working with a 2-3 RM, or maybe 90-95% of your 1RM, to ROP, in which in the end you may be working with your 7-8 or even 10RM (if you use the 24 to press the 32 for example), so maybe 65-75% or your 1RM. They all seem to work.
Thinking of it, that may be a reason why the die program works. Instead of having to consciously cycle between hi rep/low weight and low rep/high weight programs or cycles, the randomness does it for you.
In any case, I don't think that everyone needs to stop what they are doing and start rolling dice. However, I don't think either that we can dismiss the blog post as complete useless non-sense either. My best guess is that trainees training alone at home who would try the conventional approach and the die rolling approach over a certain (long) period of time, ie not a dedicated peaking program, would achieve similar results. A trainee coached by a very good coach, and who has access to good feedback mechanisms, ie having "pro" level coaching and execution, could do better, but that's a whole different level and not what most people do and compares apples and oranges. What would happen with the "pro" level trainee who adds randomness? Who knows.
Note that the trainee who has more "hard" sessions will have less volume, so he may not be training way harder. I have run many Strongfirst programs, from Soju and Tuba that has you working with a 2-3 RM, or maybe 90-95% of your 1RM, to ROP, in which in the end you may be working with your 7-8 or even 10RM (if you use the 24 to press the 32 for example), so maybe 65-75% or your 1RM. They all seem to work.
Thinking of it, that may be a reason why the die program works. Instead of having to consciously cycle between hi rep/low weight and low rep/high weight programs or cycles, the randomness does it for you.
In any case, I don't think that everyone needs to stop what they are doing and start rolling dice. However, I don't think either that we can dismiss the blog post as complete useless non-sense either. My best guess is that trainees training alone at home who would try the conventional approach and the die rolling approach over a certain (long) period of time, ie not a dedicated peaking program, would achieve similar results. A trainee coached by a very good coach, and who has access to good feedback mechanisms, ie having "pro" level coaching and execution, could do better, but that's a whole different level and not what most people do and compares apples and oranges. What would happen with the "pro" level trainee who adds randomness? Who knows.
Good questions! For your swings, if you follow the guidance of testing on the 5th or 9th week and are able to achieve it, you are probably able to move up in weight. However, you may just choose a 1 or 2 for volume instead of chancing it. I wouldn't choose often, as that defeats the purpose. But it serves as the same logic behind choosing the roll, when you are on vacation, etc., that I mentioned in the article.
And your get-ups, it may be some time before you're sure. That's okay. Let's say one day you decide to test it because your training weights have been feeling easier. Maybe you decide to take your heavy (die roll 6) for a spin to see if you can get 10 get-ups in 10 minutes (S&S style). You may attempt and by the 6th rep realize it's getting tougher than it should be, so you stop. You continue on the path you were on until you're ready to test again, maybe 2 or 3 weeks later.
Does that make sense?
LoneRider
Level 6 Valued Member
@Manuel Fortin and @Arryn Grogan
For the uneven front squats I'm thinking about 5-6 reps total for the 32KG and 24KG uneven pair and about 8-11 reps for the 24KG and 16KG bell loading. Or I may have my squats mirror my press numbers in the name of consistency.
For the uneven front squats I'm thinking about 5-6 reps total for the 32KG and 24KG uneven pair and about 8-11 reps for the 24KG and 16KG bell loading. Or I may have my squats mirror my press numbers in the name of consistency.
That's exactly right. The way I've written this program is more for the home lifter (without a coach). It is definitely not a peaking program. It is a combo of Plan Strong (intensity and volume variety with non-strict sets) and Simple & Sinister (train the same methods near daily and "test when you feel strong").
Consistency defeats the point of this program.
LoneRider
Level 6 Valued Member
Consistency defeats the point of this program.
I'll probably keep the volumes low for the uneven front squats and the reps in the 1-2 for the heavier pair and 1-3 for the lighter pair.
LoneRider
Level 6 Valued Member
Thanks for the video. I think that due to this being relatively new lift to me I might do it in singles and work it more a practice mode. I practiced the lift for the first time today in an easy practice, getting a single on the right side and a single at the left, both fairly wobbly since they're new moves.
ali
Level 7 Valued Member
@Arryn Grogan, hope you know I'm not being critical of your programme just suggesting that random number fluctuations can distort what is going on.
Oh I get that but due to random fluctuations it could end up as one. I guess it depends how someone determines how they feel and to what degree they put their trust in the dice! Or lack of.
Absolutely, the de-coupling of volume/intensity in waves over a period makes for a fine programme. But in evaluating and assessing, how do you assess an unknown variable?
I know for myself, my life is so damn random and bonkers, a nice steady pre-determined waviness works for me but we are all different and within that pre-determined waviness I can vary it myself to end up at, what would otherwise be, randomness, if a third person was to evaluate the numbers. But, it is kind of controlled against the randomness of life stress, if that makes any sense at all!!
Certainly it's another approach that will be a good fit at times.
Probably not for me. Certainly would not want any double 6s right now! And knowing my luck when I want a double 6, I'll get a double one. Such is chance! I'm into a nice moderate 7 at the moment. Things will change though.....
Oh I get that but due to random fluctuations it could end up as one. I guess it depends how someone determines how they feel and to what degree they put their trust in the dice! Or lack of.
Absolutely, the de-coupling of volume/intensity in waves over a period makes for a fine programme. But in evaluating and assessing, how do you assess an unknown variable?
I know for myself, my life is so damn random and bonkers, a nice steady pre-determined waviness works for me but we are all different and within that pre-determined waviness I can vary it myself to end up at, what would otherwise be, randomness, if a third person was to evaluate the numbers. But, it is kind of controlled against the randomness of life stress, if that makes any sense at all!!
Certainly it's another approach that will be a good fit at times.
Probably not for me. Certainly would not want any double 6s right now! And knowing my luck when I want a double 6, I'll get a double one. Such is chance! I'm into a nice moderate 7 at the moment. Things will change though.....
North Coast Miller
Level 9 Valued Member
That's an interesting "random" sampling. Honestly, for the way I tend to train this method could work very well no matter, as I tend toward training to failure I'll get a solid in at any load/rep range. No "easy" days, just a spread of rep ranges that I should be using anyway.
It might not be optimal for my goals but if I need a shake-up is a good way to get one. If going that route, I'd be inclined to roll 6 sessions and invert the results for the next 6, re-roll 6, invert 6 - then I'm not inducing any unwanted trends over the longer haul.
No offense taken at all
You can definitely peak on this (I for sure did, and that's how I hit both of my goals). However, one should not rely on it for any specific timeline. It will make you stronger (probably faster than one might think), but you'd be sorely mistaken to think you will hit whatever goal in any specific time. But, for the people who don't compete (most of us), that is a great way to train. The whole point is to get better with weights that are approx 75-80% 1RM, while sometimes hitting heavier and sometimes lighter.
Not for everyone. I don't use this for myself or for my students all the time. When I worked it like this for bent press and get-ups, it basically served as my warm-up for the day, and then I went onto my barbell squats where I was on a specific plan where I planned to peak in a certain week. So in my case, I used the die roll in conjunction with my more structured other lifts.
ali
Level 7 Valued Member
@North Coast Miller, There you go, randomly generated 5 day a week, for one month.
1 is easy, 5 is very hard....
6 easy 1s
2 easyish 2s
6 medium 3s
4 medium hard 4s
2 very hard 5s
or in that order a re-run
7
7
1
3
2
random fluctuations are suggesting a relatively easy framework.
a re-run for a 20 month plan:
22 easy
30 easyish
13 medium
16 moderately hard
19 very hard
1 is easy, 5 is very hard....
6 easy 1s
2 easyish 2s
6 medium 3s
4 medium hard 4s
2 very hard 5s
or in that order a re-run
7
7
1
3
2
random fluctuations are suggesting a relatively easy framework.
a re-run for a 20 month plan:
22 easy
30 easyish
13 medium
16 moderately hard
19 very hard
ali
Level 7 Valued Member
@Arryn Grogan ....thanks. I've logged it for a trial at an appropriate time, if there ever is one!
Bauer
Level 8 Valued Member
Thank you for your reply!
Well, the proof is probably in eating the pudding. However, I am still having a hard time believing that everyone will be able to switch completely to the next heavier bell. Say you managed 10x10 OH swings in 5 minutes with a 32 kg on a testing day. If you step up to swings with the 36 kg and roll a 6 you are up to 200 swings with a new weight. From your experience: Are people able to handle that amount of volume? Or do they have to adjust? I mean, for the grinds you have built in a safety switch, namely the adjusted number of lifts per session.
Btw, I have had the same question in my head when I read Pavel's article on waving the volume for S&S.
Kenny Croxdale
Level 7 Valued Member
Understand The Concepts for Optimal Training
One of the keys to writing an optimal program is understanding the training concept and then applying those concepts to a well written program and executing them.
That is why writing a well designed Non-Linear Program trump the chaos of rolling the dice, using a Quija Board, flipping a coin, etc is optimal.
"No One Plans To Fail, They Fail To Plan"
Having a Plan is better than no Plan. A Plan needs to have some flexibility to allow for adjustments in training conditions. This is know as, "Autoregulation".
Uneducated and Naive People
Uneducated and naive people do believe their is a magic bullet. Many want a quick easy answer. They prefer a yes or no answer and nothing longer than a simple sentence.
Anyone who believe the they might be able to "Deadlift the biggest weight possible in say three months" is beyond naive. Not knowing is one thing. Choosing to be stupid is another.
Baffled
And how does that qualify your in this area?
Agreed
Optimizing your training program means, writing and correctly executing a program, to the best of your ability that elicits the greatest Training Effect.
"Autoregulation"
A well educated individual uses "Autoregulation" (feedback) to make adjustments to the the Planned Program.
The Objective of A Plan
A Plan is essentially a Road Map of how to get to your destination.
A Plan increases your changes of success to your destination vs chaotically driving around rolling the dice at every turn in the road.
A Plan requires "Autoregulation" (feedback) to make adjustments if the road listed on the map is close; requiring a detour.
A Plan MUST be well executed.
Periodization Training
This is a Training Plan that has been used for decades by athletes to successfully achieve their objective. Tudor Bompa literally wrote the book on it. I am sure you can correct him on the futility of plans.
Undulating Periodiation Training
I am a proponent of a well formulated and executed Undulating Training Plan that includes Autoregulation.
I am NOT a proponent of Chaotic Training. However, as I have stated: it works for GPP Training, Novice Lifters and those who are less motivated and prefer not to use the big muscle that sit on their neck.
Control Freaks
As you stated, you cannot completely control your envirnoment.
To reiterate, Planning amount to having a road map to your destination that ensures a much greater change of getting to your destination rather than what appears to be your belief that randomly driving around to get to your destination.
Random Training amount just driving around with no objective or knowledge how where you are going.
You go out for Sunday Drives. Nothing wrong with just enjoying the scenery.
My Opinion
You are a smart guy. However, it appears you have jumped into an area where your knowledge is limited and you lack practical experience.
Kenny Crodxale
Last edited:
- Status