Mattsirpeace
Level 4 Valued Member
Thanks very much Rob & Hans. I'm just a bro figuring out what to do.
Old Forum Is GS Third Way Cardio?
- Thread starter Physical Culture
- Start date
- Status
Physical Culture
Level 5 Valued Member
"And I say this as a 10 year rowing coach, with years of taking lactate and heart rate, reading, evaluating, and learning in my sport. If there were a super muscle, you’d see rowers and skiers doing anything to get it, not to mention everyone else."
I'm no scientist, but I think that the premise behind this "super muscle" idea is that rowers and skiers already have it- they can exert substantial force for a prolonged period of time. Compared to the powerlifter or oly lifter who is very strong, but may not have much stamina, and the distance runner, who has great endurance but may be weak, rowers and skiers put out some serious effort, and do it for the long haul (as you say, 90' +), as opposed to in quick bursts, like lifters, throwers, or sprinters. That's what I understand by the term, at least- the ability to exert strength over a prolonged time.
I suppose I can refine my original question in two ways:
1. Is a continuous 10 minute set long enough to train these qualities?
2. Is the ballistic nature of the GS lifts sufficient to train these qualities? In rowing, for example, the rower takes a long stroke, and the muscles contract over a period of several feet of pulling. In GS, there is a quick, explosive contraction, then the bells rise under inertia, rather than long contraction under a wide range of motion.
I'm no scientist, but I think that the premise behind this "super muscle" idea is that rowers and skiers already have it- they can exert substantial force for a prolonged period of time. Compared to the powerlifter or oly lifter who is very strong, but may not have much stamina, and the distance runner, who has great endurance but may be weak, rowers and skiers put out some serious effort, and do it for the long haul (as you say, 90' +), as opposed to in quick bursts, like lifters, throwers, or sprinters. That's what I understand by the term, at least- the ability to exert strength over a prolonged time.
I suppose I can refine my original question in two ways:
1. Is a continuous 10 minute set long enough to train these qualities?
2. Is the ballistic nature of the GS lifts sufficient to train these qualities? In rowing, for example, the rower takes a long stroke, and the muscles contract over a period of several feet of pulling. In GS, there is a quick, explosive contraction, then the bells rise under inertia, rather than long contraction under a wide range of motion.
jgruginski
Level 3 Valued Member
Hey Steve,
I think your point in #2 really points to the nature of why this discussion is so interesting. Rowing has a longer contraction cycle than say, marathon running. Meaning that each cycle of the movement takes longer for rowers than runners (i.e. a pull on the oar and push with the legs vs a complete step with each leg). Where I think we get mixed up is trying to determine what percentage of max force production is each one of those cycles. From a percentage of max force production, I would imagine that a rower is probably putting out a higher percentage of their max force in each stroke than a runner is with each 2 step cycle. But I used running just for illustration purposes and since running doesn't involve producing force with the arms the way GS training does, it's not as close of a comparison.
If we think about what the desired outcome is in rowing and GS training i.e. high force production over extended periods (e.g. > 30 sec), we're talking about increasing the ability of fast twitch muscle fibers to utilize their aerobic system and making the nerves supplying those fibers able to "recharge" faster after each fire. In the case of runners, they don't necessarily need to produce more force to propel them higher in the air or even to have a longer stride. They need to produce the same step faster. That faster cycle points to the overall cardiovascular endurance system and nerve recovery. Would rowers benefit from crossing a greater distance with each stroke? Most definitely. Would a GS'er benefit from generating more force to initiate the lift? Possibly. I mean, how high do the bells really need to travel? Is there as much benefit in pushing them off stronger or being able to repeat the same force production a greater number of times? Your point about the ballistic nature of GS seems to be the deciding factor for me. I see a dbl kb squat to press being more analogous to rowing in cycle length, potential force production, and the idea of 3rd way cardio/hybrid muscle than GS, but this is coming from someone who never trained GS.
I think your point in #2 really points to the nature of why this discussion is so interesting. Rowing has a longer contraction cycle than say, marathon running. Meaning that each cycle of the movement takes longer for rowers than runners (i.e. a pull on the oar and push with the legs vs a complete step with each leg). Where I think we get mixed up is trying to determine what percentage of max force production is each one of those cycles. From a percentage of max force production, I would imagine that a rower is probably putting out a higher percentage of their max force in each stroke than a runner is with each 2 step cycle. But I used running just for illustration purposes and since running doesn't involve producing force with the arms the way GS training does, it's not as close of a comparison.
If we think about what the desired outcome is in rowing and GS training i.e. high force production over extended periods (e.g. > 30 sec), we're talking about increasing the ability of fast twitch muscle fibers to utilize their aerobic system and making the nerves supplying those fibers able to "recharge" faster after each fire. In the case of runners, they don't necessarily need to produce more force to propel them higher in the air or even to have a longer stride. They need to produce the same step faster. That faster cycle points to the overall cardiovascular endurance system and nerve recovery. Would rowers benefit from crossing a greater distance with each stroke? Most definitely. Would a GS'er benefit from generating more force to initiate the lift? Possibly. I mean, how high do the bells really need to travel? Is there as much benefit in pushing them off stronger or being able to repeat the same force production a greater number of times? Your point about the ballistic nature of GS seems to be the deciding factor for me. I see a dbl kb squat to press being more analogous to rowing in cycle length, potential force production, and the idea of 3rd way cardio/hybrid muscle than GS, but this is coming from someone who never trained GS.
Rtokumura
Level 2 Valued Member
The 10-minute cycle is the test correct? Not the training? Most GS training programs I have seen, besides technical training have over-tempo timed sets, lots of swings and even some recovery running built in.
With the ballistic movements one is getting fantastic hip extension, to the point I think Bret Contreras commented on a better transfer to sprint performance.
If you train GS you'll get better at GS. If you want to see about transfer it might be interesting to test a row, a middle distance sprint, short sprint and maybe a swim, then train GS, then retest to see if it improved.
That being said I think someone doing 10-minutes of continuous snatches (24kg or 32kg) is a great demonstration of being well-conditioned and having some positional abilities (repeated powerful hip hinge, packed shoulder, good breathing) and is beyond the scope of that most people think is possible (aka doing a set of 20 swings is tough for many).
But we can never forget specificity of training, getting good at running doesn't necessarily make one good at swimming.
With the ballistic movements one is getting fantastic hip extension, to the point I think Bret Contreras commented on a better transfer to sprint performance.
If you train GS you'll get better at GS. If you want to see about transfer it might be interesting to test a row, a middle distance sprint, short sprint and maybe a swim, then train GS, then retest to see if it improved.
That being said I think someone doing 10-minutes of continuous snatches (24kg or 32kg) is a great demonstration of being well-conditioned and having some positional abilities (repeated powerful hip hinge, packed shoulder, good breathing) and is beyond the scope of that most people think is possible (aka doing a set of 20 swings is tough for many).
But we can never forget specificity of training, getting good at running doesn't necessarily make one good at swimming.
Mattsirpeace
Level 4 Valued Member
I have the sense this thread could really lead somewhere. I hate to see it die just yet. Almost everybody on this forum does swings. So this 3rd way/hybrid stuff could matter for real-world programming. Here is my bro summary:
1) We aren't talking about secret exercises. Just what athletes are already doing: rowers, GSers, swingers.
2) We aren't talking about magic muscles. Just whatever muscle rowers, GSers, swingers, already have.
3) We aren't talking about the heart. It just beats slow or fast and doesn't know if you have weights in your hands. Now, the valsalva maneuver is supposed to be healthy for the heart, but that is a side issue and we are talking about skeletal muscle.
4) Muscle fiber typing is a nebulous spectrum. But everybody agrees there is fast and slow, and what's a bro gotta know?
5) All muscle can take on endurance qualities, including fast-twitch.
6) Calling this endurance/fast twitch muscle "super" or "hybrid" smells like marketing.
7) Energy systems and the brain are so important that delving into muscle fibers might not matter.
8) Specificity might also make this discussion pointless.
9) It's hard to reconcile Mel Siff with Ori Hofmekler. Cardio before weights is either a good idea or not.
10) The question is whether local muscle endurance combined with cardio at the same time has a special effect better or worse than separate sessions. Imagine identical twins, one who runs and does high-rep military presses, and the other who does 10-minute jerks. Take a muscle biopsy of their deltoids. Any difference?
I get the feeling someone smarter than me could bring this to a conclusion with a take-home message that would matter for training.
1) We aren't talking about secret exercises. Just what athletes are already doing: rowers, GSers, swingers.
2) We aren't talking about magic muscles. Just whatever muscle rowers, GSers, swingers, already have.
3) We aren't talking about the heart. It just beats slow or fast and doesn't know if you have weights in your hands. Now, the valsalva maneuver is supposed to be healthy for the heart, but that is a side issue and we are talking about skeletal muscle.
4) Muscle fiber typing is a nebulous spectrum. But everybody agrees there is fast and slow, and what's a bro gotta know?
5) All muscle can take on endurance qualities, including fast-twitch.
6) Calling this endurance/fast twitch muscle "super" or "hybrid" smells like marketing.
7) Energy systems and the brain are so important that delving into muscle fibers might not matter.
8) Specificity might also make this discussion pointless.
9) It's hard to reconcile Mel Siff with Ori Hofmekler. Cardio before weights is either a good idea or not.
10) The question is whether local muscle endurance combined with cardio at the same time has a special effect better or worse than separate sessions. Imagine identical twins, one who runs and does high-rep military presses, and the other who does 10-minute jerks. Take a muscle biopsy of their deltoids. Any difference?
I get the feeling someone smarter than me could bring this to a conclusion with a take-home message that would matter for training.
Physical Culture
Level 5 Valued Member
Thanks, all for the stimulating discussion. A few questions arise from my reading of other posts. Not challenges, just an attempt to understand:
" We aren’t talking about the heart. It just beats slow or fast and doesn’t know if you have weights in your hands. Now, the valsalva maneuver is supposed to be healthy for the heart, but that is a side issue and we are talking about skeletal muscle."
Are we not? This is about 3rd way cardio, right? Skeletal muscles don't fire without circulation and oxygenation, and it seems that conditioning the heart to work at this level is part of the training.
"Specificity might also make this discussion pointless." It seems to me that the point of discussing 3rd way cardio and "super muscle" is the premise that it carries over to other activities. If I have super muscle through 3rd way cardio, and I need to run a long way, I can. If I need to lift something heavy, I can. If I need to sprint or fight, I can. That seems to be the way it is commonly presented. I don't have the primary texts under consideration, but that's the vibe I get- that doing strength and endurance work together carries over into both ends of the spectrum of strength and endurance. Am I misunderstanding the premise?
"The 10-minute cycle is the test correct? Not the training? Most GS training programs I have seen, besides technical training have over-tempo timed sets, lots of swings and even some recovery running built in." Yes, there are many GS training methodologies, but you can't get too far from timed sets if you want to test (compete) well. My question about GS could apply to any ballistic, high rep weightlifting.
Thanks, all for helping me understand this. I'm not a physiologist, so this is all part of my self-education in the subject.
" We aren’t talking about the heart. It just beats slow or fast and doesn’t know if you have weights in your hands. Now, the valsalva maneuver is supposed to be healthy for the heart, but that is a side issue and we are talking about skeletal muscle."
Are we not? This is about 3rd way cardio, right? Skeletal muscles don't fire without circulation and oxygenation, and it seems that conditioning the heart to work at this level is part of the training.
"Specificity might also make this discussion pointless." It seems to me that the point of discussing 3rd way cardio and "super muscle" is the premise that it carries over to other activities. If I have super muscle through 3rd way cardio, and I need to run a long way, I can. If I need to lift something heavy, I can. If I need to sprint or fight, I can. That seems to be the way it is commonly presented. I don't have the primary texts under consideration, but that's the vibe I get- that doing strength and endurance work together carries over into both ends of the spectrum of strength and endurance. Am I misunderstanding the premise?
"The 10-minute cycle is the test correct? Not the training? Most GS training programs I have seen, besides technical training have over-tempo timed sets, lots of swings and even some recovery running built in." Yes, there are many GS training methodologies, but you can't get too far from timed sets if you want to test (compete) well. My question about GS could apply to any ballistic, high rep weightlifting.
Thanks, all for helping me understand this. I'm not a physiologist, so this is all part of my self-education in the subject.
Mattsirpeace
Level 4 Valued Member
Physiology isn't rocket science. It's harder.
Hi Steve,
More rambling: I latched onto this discussion out of curiosity too, just thinking out loud & hoping for guidance. Pavel was kind enough to start a new thread called "Super Fiber." There is such a thing: "The 'super fiber' is the IIA targeted with proper power endurance training. JMO" In my book, one of Pavel's opinions counts for ten of other people's "facts."
My thinking on the heart: 1st way cardio is: easy, slow, jogging, monotony, sustainable, LSD, aerobic, below threshold. 2nd way cardio is: hard, fast, sprinting, unsustainable, burst, intervals, anaerobic, smokers, above threshold. These categories are real, however you frame them.
By logical extension, 3rd way cardio should be something even harder than 2nd way. That's not possible. Once you're collapsed in the dirt, gasping for air, that's it. The one special category I can think of is rowing and hardstyle swings. The biomechanical breathing and Valsalva maneuver is supposed to strengthen the heart in a unique way.
Gallagher makes a category mistake. What he means by 3rd way isn't "even harder." It's something like "cardio with external resistance." Weights, rowing, wrestling opponent. But anything you do has to fall into one of the first two categories. The 5 & 10 minute snatch tests are 2nd way. But for you swings with 12 kg are so light that the effort is sustainable; 1st way. If I go for a brisk walk with a roll of quarters in each hand, that's also 1st way. The heart just beats fast or slow, and using weights is beside the point. There is no level even faster than fast. So that's why this discussion can't really be about the heart.
Gallagher uses the example of Mark Coleman and other MMA guys as the sort of superheroes this 3rd way training can produce. My outsider's understanding is that the training has evolved toward Easy Strength guidelines. Minimal, focused strength and cardio sessions that leave the athlete energy for practice. My source is Joel Jameison's site.
It sounds like you and I are both into GPP. Being able to carry a sofa, chase a bus, fight if necessary. I'm using the ETK standards as a proxy for well-rounded fitness, you're using GS competition. That's a whole 'nuther discussion.
The SAID principle is something of a chalkboard eraser that just wipes the slate clean anytime you start getting sciencey. Like Suzanne Vega sang, "Shove me in the shallow water before I get to deep." If you have exactly one clearly defined goal, such as rowing or GS competition, you can almost forget the science and just copy what has worked for other people. GS training for GS competition. If instead you are really into GPP, then it gets interesting. Either way, I'm incompetent to offer advice.
My only take-home from this thread is that swings are any amazing versatile exercise with carryover to deadlifting and running. I'm going to stick with biomechanical/bracing/Valsalva power breathing. Possibly I might grow myself a super hybrid warrior butt by going heavy & high volume.
Steve, thanks for starting up such a cool thread and good luck in competition and life!
Hi Steve,
More rambling: I latched onto this discussion out of curiosity too, just thinking out loud & hoping for guidance. Pavel was kind enough to start a new thread called "Super Fiber." There is such a thing: "The 'super fiber' is the IIA targeted with proper power endurance training. JMO" In my book, one of Pavel's opinions counts for ten of other people's "facts."
My thinking on the heart: 1st way cardio is: easy, slow, jogging, monotony, sustainable, LSD, aerobic, below threshold. 2nd way cardio is: hard, fast, sprinting, unsustainable, burst, intervals, anaerobic, smokers, above threshold. These categories are real, however you frame them.
By logical extension, 3rd way cardio should be something even harder than 2nd way. That's not possible. Once you're collapsed in the dirt, gasping for air, that's it. The one special category I can think of is rowing and hardstyle swings. The biomechanical breathing and Valsalva maneuver is supposed to strengthen the heart in a unique way.
Gallagher makes a category mistake. What he means by 3rd way isn't "even harder." It's something like "cardio with external resistance." Weights, rowing, wrestling opponent. But anything you do has to fall into one of the first two categories. The 5 & 10 minute snatch tests are 2nd way. But for you swings with 12 kg are so light that the effort is sustainable; 1st way. If I go for a brisk walk with a roll of quarters in each hand, that's also 1st way. The heart just beats fast or slow, and using weights is beside the point. There is no level even faster than fast. So that's why this discussion can't really be about the heart.
Gallagher uses the example of Mark Coleman and other MMA guys as the sort of superheroes this 3rd way training can produce. My outsider's understanding is that the training has evolved toward Easy Strength guidelines. Minimal, focused strength and cardio sessions that leave the athlete energy for practice. My source is Joel Jameison's site.
It sounds like you and I are both into GPP. Being able to carry a sofa, chase a bus, fight if necessary. I'm using the ETK standards as a proxy for well-rounded fitness, you're using GS competition. That's a whole 'nuther discussion.
The SAID principle is something of a chalkboard eraser that just wipes the slate clean anytime you start getting sciencey. Like Suzanne Vega sang, "Shove me in the shallow water before I get to deep." If you have exactly one clearly defined goal, such as rowing or GS competition, you can almost forget the science and just copy what has worked for other people. GS training for GS competition. If instead you are really into GPP, then it gets interesting. Either way, I'm incompetent to offer advice.
My only take-home from this thread is that swings are any amazing versatile exercise with carryover to deadlifting and running. I'm going to stick with biomechanical/bracing/Valsalva power breathing. Possibly I might grow myself a super hybrid warrior butt by going heavy & high volume.
Steve, thanks for starting up such a cool thread and good luck in competition and life!
Rtokumura
Level 2 Valued Member
IMO this is all just an energy/ATP supply and demand issue.
In untrained individuals their aerobic rate of energy production is low, and have a higher amount of non-oxidative, relatively high power, low capacity fibers. Do a set of swings and get a burn and breathless fatigue, these energy systems are EXTREMELY limited and short lived, although power output is high.
Through training the rate of ATP production from other sources (ie. aerobic) is enhanced (more stuff to make energy, less nervous inhibition and increased tolerance to fatigue) and we push our "AT" a bit further up, letting us work harder before we need to access those "quick" energy systems (and once we do fatigue rapidly). Our fibers adapt to their loading.
We train an aerobic component (from training swings, etc) allowing both our aerobic system to provide ATP for the power output and allows us to dip into our alactic/lactic reserves later on and replenish them faster.
An awesome example is a work class marathoners pace, roughly 12.5mph. I don't think I can sustain that pace for longer than maybe a few moments, yet they are able to sustain this for 2+ HOURS. Our capacity for aerobic power and capacity is huge.
Same take home. Getting good a swings builds our capacity to rapidly produce ATP for a sustained duration. We have nice biomechanical specificity, explosive complete hip extension, good spinal position and in the case of snatches/jerks, train good shoulder mechanics and the infamous "one piece."
So it depends on how we train to what we become capable of doing, and swings/snatches/jerks seem to fit the bill to get the goals we desire, high power outputs for a prolonged duration and fast recovery.
Anecdotally swings have helped my pack hiking tremendously.
In untrained individuals their aerobic rate of energy production is low, and have a higher amount of non-oxidative, relatively high power, low capacity fibers. Do a set of swings and get a burn and breathless fatigue, these energy systems are EXTREMELY limited and short lived, although power output is high.
Through training the rate of ATP production from other sources (ie. aerobic) is enhanced (more stuff to make energy, less nervous inhibition and increased tolerance to fatigue) and we push our "AT" a bit further up, letting us work harder before we need to access those "quick" energy systems (and once we do fatigue rapidly). Our fibers adapt to their loading.
We train an aerobic component (from training swings, etc) allowing both our aerobic system to provide ATP for the power output and allows us to dip into our alactic/lactic reserves later on and replenish them faster.
An awesome example is a work class marathoners pace, roughly 12.5mph. I don't think I can sustain that pace for longer than maybe a few moments, yet they are able to sustain this for 2+ HOURS. Our capacity for aerobic power and capacity is huge.
Same take home. Getting good a swings builds our capacity to rapidly produce ATP for a sustained duration. We have nice biomechanical specificity, explosive complete hip extension, good spinal position and in the case of snatches/jerks, train good shoulder mechanics and the infamous "one piece."
So it depends on how we train to what we become capable of doing, and swings/snatches/jerks seem to fit the bill to get the goals we desire, high power outputs for a prolonged duration and fast recovery.
Anecdotally swings have helped my pack hiking tremendously.
Mattsirpeace
Level 4 Valued Member
Thanks Rob for the science help & big picture.
- Status