all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Dishonor of Aerobics

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Zeohawk

Level 1 Valued Member
Hello all!

I am still relatively new to the forum so please bear with me, but I was wondering why there isn't much emphasis placed on aerobics or conditioning here? I understand this is the StrongFirst forum and not CardioFirst, but there is a category for mobility/flexibility/movement and various strength ones, so why not a category for conditioning? It is my understanding that Strong Endurance is a relatively new part of StrongFirst, so perhaps there will be more related to that in the future? I read where the new book(s) could possibly be about Strong Endurance so that would be intriguing.

Also in addition to this, does anybody know why Pavel has never made a book exclusively about conditioning? Is it simply because that is not where his interests lie or because the other programs provide sufficient conditioning for most people? Obviously there are some elements of it in ETK with the snatch test or by doing swings but I'm not aware of much else (I also haven't read ALL of his books yet so I'm sure I could be wrong). I just think it would be interesting to get his ideas and theory about this area of fitness since he has already covered many types of strength, flexibility, mobility, etc.

Thank you
 
@Zeohawk
I can't speak for the management, but...

In light of Strong Endurance, and the cool work that Al Ciampa has been doing, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't additional endurance and conditioning material forthcoming.

But you are correct in saying that we aren't called StrongFirst for nothing.

There are however many of us here that are endurance athletes as well as being strength practitioners. Many threads cover in depth topics related to this. You just need to poke around a bit.

Of course conditioning and endurance (not unlike strength) need to be framed in the proper context.
 
@offwidth
Are there associations with any particular endurance material/protocol here at StrongFirst, aside from Strong Endurance? From what I have gathered, most people here associate or train with:

Pavel's material, Dan John's material, Flexible Steel, OS and other movement systems, Gray Cook/FMS...are there any other major training works or authors I am missing?
 
@Zeohawk
We have a good amount of threads discussing conditioning and also articles (starting with this: StrongFirst Roadwork , there are a couple more).
If you search for posts by @aciampa or @mprevost you'll find that both talk plenty about endurance work and especially @mprevost explains a lot about the physiological adaptations that happen when you do endurance and/or strength training. Reading all of them you'll have a good understanding of what to do for certain goals (e.g. general endurance or peaking for an event).
Maffetone's teachings are talked about frequently here.
We are at STRONGfirst yes, so the conditioning stuff isn't that obvious, but if you take the time to look at the articles and the forum in detail you'll see that there's a lot to be found here.
 
I think instead of conditioning the favored term is work capacity. The article @pet' posted is an excellent example of it. Work capacity like that can be accomplished by training with weights. Many consider training like that to give them the conditioning that they need, and much more.
 
@Zeohawk, welcome to the StrongFirst forum. You've received a number of good answers. Please read the suggested blogs on our forum.

We are not somehow against the idea of conditioning, but we are, as you observed, StrongFirst. We aren't Strong Only, but we believe that strength is a fundamental physical and mental quality that should take precedence over endurance in most people's training. Assuming a foundation of good movement without restrictions, focus on strength first.

"Most" is "most people's training" in my sentence above is because you haven't been specific. If you are interested in endurance for health benefits, our protocols will deliver that. If you're interested in endurance as an adjunct or assistance for some sort of sport, please be specific about what you're trying to accomplish, but know this - we believe the sport-specific training is generally the domain of sport-specific coaches, and also that one's endurance for many sports is best practiced on the sports field and not in the gym. Our flagship program, Kettlebell Simple and Sinister, will deliver both strength and endurance and will help a wide variety of people engaged in a wide variety of pursuits.

So, what are you trying to accomplish in specific, please?

Thanks.

-S-
 
As stated in the OP we don't have a dedicated sub forum for conditioning but Pavel's book Simple & Sinister is the basis for much of the discourse I see here.

S&S is in my view mostly an aerobic conditioning instruction manual that incorporates aerobic conditioning with a full body strength training program at the same time. It's just not overtly presented as an aerobic conditioning manual. Anyone that's achieved simple will be in much better physical shape than many gym goers doing spin classes or steady state cardio or traditional aerobics and because they are not beating themselves up the chances of sticking to the program are much higher.

Anyone that reaches sinister would be in a better shape, both in terms of aerobic fitness and strength than almost everyone except elite/professional athletes..

When I say in better shape I'm not referring to VO2 max or other somewhat flawed measures of fitness. To me it's more about training in specific heart rate zones & maintaining health. In my view tradition aerobics has in many ways been shown to be excessive and not up to date with what we now know about about health and longevity.

Without doubt there are quicker ways to max out on your potential VO2 max but almost invariably it takes it toll on recovery times & can cause chronic inflammation that will either make you sick or put you out the game.

For me it's an updated approach to aerobic fitness with a focus on maintaining health.
 
Hello,

offwidth said:
Yes... but health and longevity are many times at crossed purposes to performance...
Click to expand...
If there is no "specific need" such as a sport for instance, most of the time, people do more conditioning than they really need in "daily life" to be healthy. To a certain extent, they do far more than the "minimum effective dose".

I think we can be amazed by the real conditioning we need...which can be pretty "low". This is always difficult to precisely determine how much conditioning we need to be "healthy without [too much] fatigue and without dedicate [too much] time to training".

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
I think the 'dishonor of aerobics' phrase is Pavel's humorous way of saying with the good programs you can be (and stay) well-conditioned without having to put on the leg warmers and get in the step class at the local fitness club. Not that there's anything wrong with leg warmers or step classes or fitness clubs...cause there isn't. just sayin'...

I think interpreting this phrase to mean an absence of conditioning is a misunderstanding of that intent...not that there's anything wrong with that, either.

there's been a lot of wth posts, etc. where people have run 5K's or done well in a running PT or something just doing S&S or whatever without running for awhile, so there's some basis for it.
 
Thank you for all the good responses! I want to be clear, I wholeheartedly agree with your principles here and your sound protocols. I just created this thread out of curiosity's sake and to simply learn more about how you guys view conditioning. I am just a regular guy looking to improve all aspects of fitness, performance, and health so I do not need any specific advice or catering to necessarily, although I appreciate it. Strength is definitely my top priority.

@Tarzan
Your post was very interesting, what is it about traditional aerobics that makes you think it is excessive and counterproductive to health? If you are talking about those that consistently train for and run marathons and the like I can understand that. Many times that is excessive. I do think people often waste time on aerobic machines when they should be working on strength, but I do not see how it is counterproductive to health if you keep your aerobics to 30 minutes a few times a week or so. However I agree it all depends on the person's goals and if they view conditioning as a higher priority over strength.

Do you know if Simple & Sinister is similar to Strong Endurance and the new research that is coming out? Or are they completely different? I understand S&S has an aerobic component to it but I am just intrigued to learn more i.e. through an endurance book. It seems like StrongFirst's view is to do short bursts of conditioning in the mold of swings or snatches and perhaps supplement with a run every now and then? It is my understanding that endurance needs to be worked through actually "enduring" like with a long steady run, but could doing GTG swings or something similar to that actually be a better alternative and build up those same capacities but with less fatigue?

Does anti-glycolytic training build up aerobic and anaerobic energy systems?

Why does there have to be an either/or with regards to health or performance? Can you not train for the adaptations that lead to max performance in a sustainable way? By this I mean aerobic/anaerobic not work capacity because I can see how training for work capacity would not be sustainable.

Sorry for all the questions. I believe in StrongFirst but also balance in all things. Conditioning and cardio is something I view as vital to not only improving your strength but also your health.
 
The comrade stuff, the IN RUSSIA stuff, the dishonor of aerobics stuff, it’s all the work of a very good mind who knows how to get you to pay attention. You’re then led to the meat of the philosophies and programs. I don’t mean to imply Pavel is a liar or anything, he certainly is not. He just knows how to market ideas and realizes you can’t give beginners the bare dull science and expect them to be excited and run with it successfully. He’s taking fun yet direct language, hooking you in, and slowly leading you towards health and success. There’s a lot of depth to StrongFirst books, articles, and such.

If you’re put off by the initial way something is marketed take a moment to consider what’s under that layer and you’ll likely be pleasantly surprised. StrongFirst means Strength before all else right? Well in my experience that’s not the final truth. The core belief is to build everything up from a strong base. Very few people could ever excel at intense endurance challenges without a certain level of strength. Controlling that strength through different angles and through varying levels of intensity is key.
 
Matts said:
I think the 'dishonor of aerobics' phrase is Pavel's humorous way of saying with the good programs you can be (and stay) well-conditioned without having to put on the leg warmers and get in the step class at the local fitness club. Not that there's anything wrong with leg warmers or step classes or fitness clubs...cause there isn't. just sayin'...

I think interpreting this phrase to mean an absence of conditioning is a misunderstanding of that intent...not that there's anything wrong with that, either.

there's been a lot of wth posts, etc. where people have run 5K's or done well in a running PT or something just doing S&S or whatever without running for awhile, so there's some basis for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I believe it was humor as well but then I realized that there isn't much discussion or categories for aerobics so it made me wonder. After all this is StrongFirst so I completely understand that it is not emphasized and there's nothing wrong with that. I also understand that you guys don't advocate completely dismissing it either, especially since you get it through things like S&S, etc.

Do you know if those people that ran had a history of running? I presume so, or was a lot of their progress achieved through S&S and the like?
 
@Zeohawk

The advice that @Kettlebelephant gave about perusing posts from @aciampa and @mprevost is where you should start if you want to get into understanding the nuances of the approach taken here. There is a wealth of knowledge there.

Personally I don't think there necessarily needs to be an either/or with respect to health and performance as long as each are properly defined in context. But many times they are at crossed purposes and for a variety of reasons.

Again, only speaking from personal experience... many times in the past (and sometimes even today) I train for performance in a fashion that undoubtedly compromises my health, safety, and longevity.

We all have our reasons...
 
Geoduck said:
The comrade stuff, the IN RUSSIA stuff, the dishonor of aerobics stuff, it’s all the work of a very good mind who knows how to get you to pay attention. You’re then led to the meat of the philosophies and programs. I don’t mean to imply Pavel is a liar or anything, he certainly is not. He just knows how to market ideas and realizes you can’t give beginners the bare dull science and expect them to be excited and run with it successfully. He’s taking fun yet direct language, hooking you in, and slowly leading you towards health and success. There’s a lot of depth to StrongFirst books, articles, and such.

If you’re put off by the initial way something is marketed take a moment to consider what’s under that layer and you’ll likely be pleasantly surprised. StrongFirst means Strength before all else right? Well in my experience that’s not the final truth. The core belief is to build everything up from a strong base. Very few people could ever excel at intense endurance challenges without a certain level of strength. Controlling that strength through different angles and through varying levels of intensity is key.
Click to expand...

I see that makes plenty of sense, and I want to repeat I take absolutely no issue with any of that. However, to add to that Pavel's works aren't all about building up a base though. Perhaps they will be from now on but many here end up going on to ROP as a result of having that foundation after S&S. Beyond Bodybuilding is another example. So while it makes a lot of sense to build up that base first you have to develop that as well. Whether through conditioning or strength.
 
This is all easier to think about if we more clearly define our terms.

I define fitness as the ability to do a physical task (i.e., deadlift 300lbs, or run a mile in 6 minutes).

I define health as the optimal function of the body systems (cardiovascular, metabolic, muscular, joints, bones, immune etc.).

It is possible to have one without the other, although often they are related. There can be lots of overlap. The principle of training specificity ALWAYS dictates what is best for fitness.

There is much more flexibility when it comes to health. The most widely accepted recommendation for cardiovascular health is to accumulate a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate intensity aerobic exercise per week. I don't like their definition of moderate intensity because most will think this is jogging (which meets their definition of "vigorous" exercise), when it is actually walking briskly. So a minimum dose is 150 minutes of brisk walking per week. The research shows that most of the benefit comes from the shift from doing very little to doing this threshold amount. There are more benefits to be had with more volume but they taper off as volume increases (though a true plateau has yet to be determined). There is a growing recognition that you can substitute a lower volume of higher intensity exercise and get similar benefits. This has not been well characterized yet. So there is some volume that is less than 150 minutes per week, that is sufficient if the intensity is higher than moderate.

I think the genius of Simple and Sinister is that it is primarily a program for health, that also has lots of performance overlap, but achieves this with minimal time, equipment, and only two exercises. Many people forget that Simple and Sinister is the new Program Minimum, updated to provide a more powerful punch in terms of both health and performance. That combo is hard to beat and it is hard to think of a better way to spend your time if you only have 15- 20 minutes or so to train and want both health and performance. It meets (exceeds actually) the minimum recommendations for cardiovascular health, but also has a healthy dose of mobility and strength and you can do it in your garage, with $100 worth of equipment, in 15 minutes.

If time and equipment is less of an issue, perhaps a more comprehensive program would produce more performance and maybe more health benefits but S & S is at least the 90% solution and better than what most are doing. But keep specificity in mind. If you are training to run 1.5 miles in under 9:00 (like my Navy PRT), Simple & Sinister alone will not likely get you there. S&S is also not the best way to train for a powerlifting competition or for carrying a 55lb pack up and down hills for 4 hours (though it could help somewhat with all of these goals). Specificity matters. However, as a health program with lots of performance punch, done in 15 minutes or less, I can't think of a better program.
 
Geoduck said:
The comrade stuff, the IN RUSSIA stuff, the dishonor of aerobics stuff, it’s all the work of a very good mind who knows how to get you to pay attention. You’re then led to the meat of the philosophies and programs. I don’t mean to imply Pavel is a liar or anything, he certainly is not. He just knows how to market ideas and realizes you can’t give beginners the bare dull science and expect them to be excited and run with it successfully. He’s taking fun yet direct language, hooking you in, and slowly leading you towards health and success. There’s a lot of depth to StrongFirst books, articles, and such.

If you’re put off by the initial way something is marketed take a moment to consider what’s under that layer and you’ll likely be pleasantly surprised. StrongFirst means Strength before all else right? Well in my experience that’s not the final truth. The core belief is to build everything up from a strong base. Very few people could ever excel at intense endurance challenges without a certain level of strength. Controlling that strength through different angles and through varying levels of intensity is key.
Click to expand...
@Geoduck, please be careful to differentiate between StrongFirst and our original company. To the best of my knowledge, the "comrade" references stopped when StrongFirst started.

-S-
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom