all posts post new thread

Kettlebell Do you need grinds?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
I keep reading through this thread and I keep hearing - what is the minimum I can do? ...
Every time I hear that, I hear: How can I just get by? how can I mediocre? what's the minimum to not be sick

Why be mediocre? Why not be better than average? Why not be well balanced? Why not live well?

The more important question related to grinds and balistics: how do I optimally cycle the various base physical qualities? What is a good proportion between each? How do I determine which quality needs the most work at any one time? I'll re-submit that the original Crossfit manifesto listed each quality out clearly. Tudor Bompa gave us an overly complicated way to cycle them... I might need to re-read Easy Strength to see if the answers are there.

The health and fitness journey only ends when you die. And it is easier to fill the tank up when you are younger.
 
cwheeler33 said:
Why be mediocre? Why not be better than average? Why not be well balanced? Why not live well?
Click to expand...
It's hard to be better than average at everything, there just isn't enough time and energy. If you're spending time improving at one thing it means you're not spending that time on another thing so I suppose it comes down to what your priorities are.
 
the hansenator said:
It's hard to be better than average at everything, there just isn't enough time and energy. If you're spending time improving at one thing it means you're not spending that time on another thing so I suppose it comes down to what your priorities are.
Click to expand...

It's not just a matter of time and energy.

Some physical adaptations interfere with each other.

For example, my sport is (Olympic) weightlifting. The bench press is not a competition lift for me. If I practice bench press enough to put up respectable numbers for my bodyweight, it interferes with my ability to reach overhead positions. This is not true of all weightlifters, but it's pretty common situation depending on physiognomy. This is not because I'm neglecting overhead work, but because of structural changes in my shoulder girdle.

Conversely, many powerlifters can't get their shoulders in a good barbell rack position, necessary for the clean and jerk, because the adaptations to get really strong at bench pressing have impacts on their shoulder and thoracic mobility.

Similarly, the heavy squats I do to improve my Olympic lifts put extra meat on my legs that are just dead weight if I want to get good at running a marathon.
 
watchnerd said:
It's not just skill.

It's also the biological adaptation of having strength that lasts beyond the ~10 seconds or so of alactic fuel supply.
Click to expand...


I think this is where the value of longer duration isometrics shines as well. In the real world much of what we do simply doesn't have a ROM - there's no relief until you set the weight down or stop exerting.
 
North Coast Miller said:
I think this is where the value of longer duration isometrics shines as well. In the real world much of what we do simply doesn't have a ROM - there's no relief until you set the weight down or stop exerting.
Click to expand...

And loaded carries, which are basically longer duration isometrics + movement.

If I only cared about wellness and health, and had to be restricted to one modality of grind, loaded carries would be near the top of my short list.
 
the hansenator said:
It's hard to be better than average at everything, there just isn't enough time and energy. If you're spending time improving at one thing it means you're not spending that time on another thing so I suppose it comes down to what your priorities are.
Click to expand...
watchnerd said:
It's not just a matter of time and energy.

Some physical adaptations interfere with each other.
Click to expand...

Ultimately you have to ID what your goal is. Grindy lifting and isometrics match a lot more of what I use my strength for than more explosive lifting. You do need some variety, but most folks will have to lean one way or the other and the rest gets pulled along.
 
If I may join the chorus of people disagreeing with you, @cwheeler33, please...

cwheeler33 said:
Why be mediocre? Why not be better than average? Why not be well balanced? Why not live well?
Click to expand...
Meh. That's an oversimplification.

For my life, strength is the foundational physical quality that must be maintained, and "maintained" is accomplished by trying to improve, not trying to maintain. And for me, that's not an oversimplification, it's an awareness initially arrived at during my recovery from a severe injury, and one reinforced every time I let my strength training slide too far down on my list of priorities.

My "mediocre" strength, a 2.5 x bodyweight deadlift, seems exceptional to many because far too few take the time to become and stay strong. That I've earned several records as a deadlifter shouldn't be seen as my accomplishment but rather as the lack of necessary physical maintenance by most of the population.

-S-
 
I love @cwheeler33 's attitude, because I share it. And I will argue that minimum usually does mean mediocre. But I also don't necessarily think everyone needs to be better than mediocre. A couple of personal experiences come to mind.

First, my brother and I are very different people. I'm fundamentally greedy. I want all the money. I want all the strength. I want the glory. My brother values solitude and reflection. He doesn't much care for exercise, but he has iron-clad discipline in his diet, and is a voracious reader. I read maybe 1-2 books a year. Is one of us "better" than the other? Depend on how your measure.

Second, I coach a lot of youth (elementary school age) sports. I get some kids who are natural competitors, and some who are decidedly not, and are just there to have fun with their friends. As a coach, my job is to show the competitors what to do to reach the next level. But, for the non-competitors, my job is not to try to turn them into competitors (some coaches disagree on this, of course). With them, my job is to show them that they could be competitors if they wanted, and keep them having fun. Many of them probably won't be good enough to play later in life, so let's enjoy this time.

In the end, the iron doesn't care what your goals are. It just wants to be picked up from time to time.
 
Steve Freides said:
My "mediocre" strength, a 2.5 x bodyweight deadlift, seems exceptional to many because far too few take the time to become and stay strong. That I've earned several records as a deadlifter shouldn't be seen as my accomplishment but rather as the lack of necessary physical maintenance by most of the population.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you are too humble, sir... but I'm also not sure that you've actually disagreed with @cwheeler33 . To say that "I'm not special, anyone could and should have done this" is to say that everyone else has undershot - they've all accepted mediocrity. Or, if you call yourself mediocre, they've all accepted less than mediocrity.
 
cwheeler33 said:
I keep reading through this thread and I keep hearing - what is the minimum I can do? ...
Every time I hear that, I hear: How can I just get by? how can I mediocre? what's the minimum to not be sick

Why be mediocre? Why not be better than average? Why not be well balanced? Why not live well?
Click to expand...
offwidth said:
One gets back to needing to define good enough for what?
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert but a balanced combination of aerobic and strenght training it's the best bet on staying healthy.
I also add that it's better to avoid too few and too much.

www.mayoclinic.org

7 great reasons why exercise matters

Improve your heart health, mood, stamina and more with regular physical activity.
www.mayoclinic.org www.mayoclinic.org
The bottom line on exercise

Exercise and physical activity are great ways to feel better, boost your health and have fun. For most healthy adults, the Department of Health and Human Services recommends:

  • At least 150 minutes a week of moderate aerobic activity or 75 minutes a week of vigorous aerobic activity, or a combination of moderate and vigorous activity. The guidelines suggest that you spread this exercise throughout the week. Examples include running, walking or swimming. Even small amounts of physical activity are helpful, and accumulated activity throughout the day adds up to provide health benefits.
  • Strength training exercises for all major muscle groups at least two times a week. Examples include lifting free weights, using weight machines or doing body-weight training.
 
Steve Freides said:
I'd ask the question the other way. Do we need anything _but_ grinds? Strength training and a normal, active life have been very good to me. "Normal, active" means you walk outside for at least a half an hour most days. If you lifestyle doesn't allow this to happen easily - mine does - then park your car at the far end of the lot and walk into the mall from there. Get off the subway one stop sooner than you need to and walk an extra 10 or 20 blocks. You get the idea. :)

Better conditioning is great, and I cycle it in and out of my own training, but I submit that, for your health, you need to be strong first (hey) and by doing that and "enduring" things like walking a mile twice a day at a comfortable pace, you can be in great health (provided you eat and sleep well).

-S-
Click to expand...

Very well said! For me (and many others here I would assume) grinds are fundamental to strength and strength is fundamental to life! But the question is, "After a certain level of strength is achieved through grinds, does the use of ballistics (The Quick and the Dead for example) make these grind no longer necessary, or even detrimental to progress?"
 
Adachi said:
Wow. Just, Wow. So, what I want to say is: He stole my idea. But, I was no where near as deep as he is in this explanation of the idea, and I officially join him in training for the Centenarian Olympics. Now to come up with my events.
So far, i've got the fridge pull... the couch drag... the chair clean...
Click to expand...

Worth noting that Attia - like others who have developed equivalent frameworks - is not suggesting a minimalist approach. No "pick one or two exercises" or even "pick one modality." The body deteriorates with age in a multitude of ways, and it can adapt in a multitude of ways.
 
njrick1 said:
Very well said! For me (and many others here I would assume) grinds are fundamental to strength and strength is fundamental to life! But the question is, "After a certain level of strength is achieved through grinds, does the use of ballistics (The Quick and the Dead for example) make these grind no longer necessary, or even detrimental to progress?"
Click to expand...

Let's try a thought experiment. Let's use the Attia example of wanting to pick up a little kid as an old man. He says he thinks he needs to be able to do a goblet squat with 30 lbs at some old age. If we use the McCulloch coefficients (not saying they are "right" but I have them handy), at around 90 years old it is 2.5. What that means is that for the 90 year old, a goblet squat with 30 lbs is about the same as a 40 year old using 75 lbs. Now for healthy males, c'mon. I am well past 40 and of below average size, and there is no way a 32 kg KB goblet squat is going to be detrimental to progress. And the functionality of being able to do that deep squat is not going to be maintained by KB ballistics.
 
njrick1 said:
Very well said! For me (and many others here I would assume) grinds are fundamental to strength and strength is fundamental to life! But the question is, "After a certain level of strength is achieved through grinds, does the use of ballistics (The Quick and the Dead for example) make these grind no longer necessary, or even detrimental to progress?"
Click to expand...
@njrick1, progress at what? Q&D is great for health, undoubtedly, but I don't consider that in the same class as training to 200 snatches in 10 minutes or 100 in 5 minutes, or running a distance at a certain speed. IOW, I don't think we should use Q&D as an example of more traditional aerobic training in this discussion - it's another thing.

offwidth said:
I am inclined to agree with you 100% on this.
However...some performance based athletes don't necessarily have staying healthy high up on their priority list...
Click to expand...
True, but we are discussing health and longevity, not training for maximum performance, here - are we not?

Thanks.

-S-
 
North Coast Miller said:
l. In the real world much of what we do simply doesn't have a ROM - there's no relief until you set the weight down or stop exerting.
Click to expand...
John Locke said:
At least 150 minutes a week of moderate aerobic activity or 75 minutes a week of vigorous aerobic activity, or a combination of moderate and vigorous activity.
Click to expand...
John Locke said:
Strength training exercises for all major muscle groups at least two times a week. Examples include lifting free weights, using weight machines or doing body-weight training.
Click to expand...
Steve A said:
Now for healthy males, c'mon. I am well past 40 and of below average size, and there is no way a 32 kg KB goblet squat is going to be detrimental to progress. And the functionality of being able to do that deep squat is not going to be maintained by KB ballistics.
Click to expand...
OK, I think we are on to something. Say one wanted to do a great program for people who don't want their life to be dictated by the gym. Ideally, one would need about 45 minutes 4-5 times a week and train from home as commuting to the gym takes some time. Squat racks are not a good idea for such programs. You need compact equipment that does not require a lot of room to use and does not cost too much.

Now, I would add something to loosen a bit the shoulders and hips of people who spend a lot of time in front of the computer, maybe a bit of other flexibility exercises. Once that's taken care of we could add light goblet squats, so as not to tax the rest of the training session too much. Always good to be able to pick kids and other stuff that's somewhat heavy from the ground. We would need some type of work in which you hold a heavy weight for a long time, maybe in a variety of weird positions. That seems to translate well to real life. Then, something that develops the strength of the lower body a bit more, to hit all muscle groups, and ideally the whole posterior chain and the abs, if we get greedy. The deadlift is a good exercise, but you need a bar and that's a bit out of the bounds of what I think this introductory program should be. We also need a way to work the aerobic system a bit. The recommendation is 75 minutes of vigorous activity, so maybe going hard for 15-20 minutes 5 times a week at something.

We have to get a catchy name for it though. That always helps to get people to talk about it. I don't know, maybe "It's not complicated, but do it long enough and people will not mess with you". OK, the name is not that good, but someone good enough to come up with the program could probably find a good name that means the same. If only such a program existed. I wonder where we may find someone that could come up with it ;).
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom