all posts post new thread

Kettlebell Hardstyle Laziness - I don't get it

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

S. G. Mason

Level 1 Valued Member
This is discussed in its own chapter in S & S.

I am confused regarding the application of the concept.

It starts off with a quote from Nikolay Ozolin, to the effect that a sprinter sprinting loosely/without tension at 85-95% effort will run faster than when sprinting at an all-out effort.

Pavel then says that punches or kicks at a perceives effort of 80% of maximum tend to be the hardest.

Brett Jones is then cited talking about different effort levels when swinging, to discover which level of effort produces the optimal swing (i.e. the minimum effort level which produces the crispest swing).

Next is a quote from a Black Belt article from Dave Lowry, which seems to discuss not so much the intensity of effort, but duration of contraction to produce a powerful punch. The more experienced practitioner contracts for the least amount of time.

Lastly, Pavel ends the chapter by saying that Hardstyle laziness only works for the strong because a stronger muscle needs to contract less to produce the same amount of force as a weaker one.

Am I right in thinking:

1. Effort and intensity of muscular contractions are linked to a point, but we reach points where increased effort not only fails to produce a commensurate increase in muscular contraction intensity and speed (i.e. power) but actually produces a decrease

2. Hardstyle laziness does NOT seek to minimise the intensity and speed of muscular contraction (power) but seeks to find the minimum effort, and duration of that effort, to produce the maximum muscle power

3. Thus, the essence of Hardstyle Laziness is the minimum percentage and duration of effort to produce the most powerful swing?

4. But if number 3 DOES summarise the concept, I am struggling to reconcile Pavel's statement about stronger muscles needing less contraction to produce the same force than weaker muscles. I thought that the idea was not about weaker contractions/less power (as per number 2)?

The issue is my comprehension, not the concept or explanation because I am the only one here to not not get it. *Blushes*
 
Last edited:
@S. G. Mason, you understand this well enough. The apparent contradictions will make more sense to you after several months of swings every day.

-S-
 
While reading that chapter I was reminded of the concept of diminishing returns. At some point extra effort becomes wasteful or even self-defeating. An example, in my case, when I try to put too much effort into swings I end up pulling with my arms and the result is bad form and less power in the movement.
 
Beeph, that's human nature- when we try to hard, we tend to overactivate the wrong parts. That's what makes golf, baseball, cricket, etc. difficult skills to master. My golf teacher used to use the same numbers as that chapter- he'd say hit the ball as far as you can with the iron, and it would go, say, 125 yards. Then hit it with 50%, and it'd go 160 yards, and 80%, maybe 165 yds.

I think all ballistic sports have an "engine" component, and a "payload" component. Usually, the hips and legs are the main part of the engine, and the shoulders, arms, and the kettlebell, bat, or club together make up the payload. The payload must be free-spinning to work efficiently; anything that introduces tension slows down the speed and adds extra work for the engine. Taking it one-step further, it's also good to relax the opposing muscles to the working muscles for the same reason. It can take a long time to get really fine-tuned so only the proper muscles are working with maximum output for the minimum time needed.
 
My swings improved dramatically when I stopped doing them with maximum effort.

Experiment doing them with minimal effort and then add a little more effort each rep until the bell is going up about chest level. I usually stay there, sometimes add a little bit more effort.

Don't forget speed. Do them fast with just the right amount of effort. Then just let the weight of the kettlebell make you stronger.
 
@S. G. Mason

Lastly, Pavel ends the chapter by saying that Hardstyle laziness only works for "the strong" because a stronger muscle needs to contract less to produce the same amount of force as a weaker one.

4. But if number 3 DOES summarise the concept, I am struggling to reconcile Pavel's statement about stronger muscles needing less contraction to produce the same force than weaker muscles. I thought that the idea was not about weaker contractions/less power (as per number 2)?

Grasshopper, like Steve noted, keep swinging hard and you will become, "the strong"... and all doubt will be removed.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom