Kettlebell Is simple and sinister all you need?

[Halfakneecap]

There is no zealot as fierce as a recent convert.

I work with a keto convert. Its painful haha. I don’t care how or what anyone chooses to eat, but don’t shake your head and give me a lecture when I’m eating my rice and tuna haha

 

[Steve Freides]

I confess I find this entire thread puzzling. Here's a page from S&S:

In the XIV century, William of Occam of Occam's Razor fame gave the best training advice: "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less." The Simple & Sinister program (S&S) has been ruthlessly pruned down to only two exercises, known to deliver the widest range of benefits while being simple to learn and safe when properly executed. The programming is foolproof.

Simple & Sinister is what Russians call a general preparation program.

• S&S will prepare you for almost anything life could throw at you ...
• S&S will forge a fighter's physique ...
• S&S will give you the strength, the stamina, and the suppleness to recreationally play any sport - and play it well.
• If you are a serious athlete, S&S will serve as a perfect foundation for your sport-specific training.
• If you are a serious lifter, S&S will build your strength, rather than interfere with it.

Simple & Sinister will achieve all of the above while leaving plenty of time and energy to do your duty, your job, practice your sport, and have a life.

What S&S is not.

This is not a program to maximize any one attribute of performance in a particular event. If you goal is to press the heaviest kettlebell possible, to do 1,000 swings non-stop, to deadlift a record weight, or to win a championship race, S&S is not what you are looking for. That is what specialist programs are for - and they should always come after a foundation of general physical preparation has been laid....

The majority of people, with the exception of competitive athletes at or above the high-intermediate level, do not need specialized training of that sort, and will get the most benefits with the least investment of time and energy from a powerful generalist program like S&S.

We are about training "an inch wide and a mile deep" here at StrongFirst. If you think including a larger variety of exercises makes one's programming better, you're mistaken. More is more, and better is better, but more is not always better. And if you think you're smarter than Pavel when it comes to programming, we'll have to disagree about that, too. Let's also note that the quoted portion of the book above says, "a powerful generalist program like S&S." It doesn't say, "only S&S."The old Program Minimum was also such a program and there are others, e.g., the BJJ Fanatics program. These are minimalist, generalist programs.

Is simple and sinister all you need to keep you strong for the rest of your life.
Even if you didn't particularly like working out. But practiced simple and and sinister daily, would that be enough to keep you strong and healthy.

Yes, it's all you need. And if someone "didn't particularly like working out," that's on them. E.g., I don't particularly like brushing my teeth.

For the same time commitment, you could get so much more by rotating to new methodologies from time to time.

Everything has diminishing returns, and doing only S&S forever would be needlessly constraining oneself.

The page quoted from S&S addresses this directly. If you have other goals, you need programming to support those other goals. If fitness for life is your only goal, S&S delivers.

From a novice perspective, I can say, what S&S is for KBs, PTTP is for Barbells, by nature it is to increase strength. It is not a GPP program.

I respectfully disagree. I started with PTTP. We have often quoted @Rif saying "Strength fixes everything" and PTTP made a huge difference in everything for me - when you're stronger, the Relative Perceived Exertion of everything else in your life goes down. I went (as I've said here before) from 2 pullups to 12 pullups with no pullup training after 6 months of PTTP. PTTP is absolutely GPP. At the end of the day, though, S&S will be better GPP for most people, most of the time.

-S-

 

[watchnerd]

If fitness for life is your only goal, S&S delivers.

Everything eventually gets stale and adaptation slows. It will inevitably stop delivering good results when compared to a novel stimulus.

"For life" is a long time to just stick with one routine.

Acknowledging this isn't a bad thing -- there are plenty of Strongfirst programs to graduate to.

 

[Adachi]

Is simple and sinister all you need to keep you strong for the rest of your life.

Maybe.

would that be enough to keep you strong and healthy.

If I'm imagining that I did nothing else but punch the clock with simple and sinister and maybe got up to timeless or timed Sinister standard and just kept doing that, I don't know how weak or unhealthy I'd be.

How weak and unhealthy would I be swinging and getting up with 100lbs ?

How does Pavel tsatsouline train now that's he's an older age?

The only time I saw Pavel answer that question was on Joe Rogan.

Pavel said that for some significant period of time (years, I think) mostly swings and dips. An extremely anti glycolytic protocol.

I dare say he might have been taking a cycle of Q&D / A+A at the time.
I'm sure his training varies to some extent.

who knows what he's been up to since then.
Maybe he's still at it with mostly swings & dips.

 

[watchnerd]

How weak and unhealthy would I be swinging and getting up with 100lbs ?

But let's be realistic...

How many people are going to hit Sinister? And how long, in your life, are you going to maintain that?

Especially if they're casual trainees optimizing for work life balance & minimalist training using only kettlebells for about 30 min a day.

S&S has been out for almost 10 years and the list of those who have hit Sinister is still pretty small. And I know some of them have moved on to other training goals and modalities.

Added to that, it's not going to get easier or more likely as you get older; "Sinister-capable for life" isn't going to happen.

It's not impossible, but Sinister is freakin *hard*, even for people who are very active and fit.

As far as I know, Pavel never hit it.

Statistically, this is a bit like saying "how weak and unhealthy would I be if I compete in Ironman competitions?"

 

[guardian7]

With all the respect to people who might want to learn what Pavel does himself, I don’t want to learn He has so much exercise history under his belt that; learning what he personally does, will be misleading for me.

When it comes to evaluating S&S. It is a fantastic program for a broad number of audience.

For an experienced athlete S&S might mean a great GPP or a great strength program without taking much from his/her main sports/interest, for a novice beginner it might mean all he/she needs.

Let’s be realistic and honest. S&S alone, will provide more exercise than American Health’s organizations weekly recommendation to be healthy in all modalities for general population.

S&S is no joke. It is first of all a great screening tool on its own. It revealed my mobility and cardio weaknesses that were not revealed by some other programs. Second, It covers a lot of modalities and in a very good way, relative to most other programs and does that with a minimalistic approach giving practitioner a relief.

I was shopping around as well and hesitant to go w S&S which on surface seemed very minimal. I have tried a few sessions with outmost worst form ( not recommended at all, I am lucky that I did not hurt myself badly) without the preparation work. Then
I have imagined myself, reaching goal Simple. That version of me, had more cardio capability, more mobility and more strength than who I am now, the answer was given.

Best;

Ege

Right, it is similar to people who point to guy X on Youtube and saying "Age is just a number" when said dude has often been working out for 40 years!

 

[Ege]

I confess I find this entire thread puzzling. Here's a page from S&S:



We are about training "an inch wide and a mile deep" here at StrongFirst. If you think including a larger variety of exercises makes one's programming better, you're mistaken. More is more, and better is better, but more is not always better. And if you think you're smarter than Pavel when it comes to programming, we'll have to disagree about that, too. Let's also note that the quoted portion of the book above says, "a powerful generalist program like S&S." It doesn't say, "only S&S."The old Program Minimum was also such a program and there are others, e.g., the BJJ Fanatics program. These are minimalist, generalist programs.



Yes, it's all you need. And if someone "didn't particularly like working out," that's on them. E.g., I don't particularly like brushing my teeth.



The page quoted from S&S addresses this directly. If you have other goals, you need programming to support those other goals. If fitness for life is your only goal, S&S delivers.



I respectfully disagree. I started with PTTP. We have often quoted @Rif saying "Strength fixes everything" and PTTP made a huge difference in everything for me - when you're stronger, the Relative Perceived Exertion of everything else in your life goes down. I went (as I've said here before) from 2 pullups to 12 pullups with no pullup training after 6 months of PTTP. PTTP is absolutely GPP. At the end of the day, though, S&S will be better GPP for most people, most of the time.

-S-

Thanks for sharing this. And thanks for reminding “an inch wide and a mile deep” again.

 

[marvinthemartian]

Additionally, my anecdotal experience is that once I was past the skill acquisition phase of ‘learning kettlebells’, I progressed faster in S&S by not doing it exclusively than I did when I was.

What's the heaviest KB you have managed to hit the timed S&S standards?

 

[ClaudeR]

Thank you @Steve Freides , I am just as puzzled by the thread since the book spells out clearly what the program is and isn’t

I also think it oversees one of the key points of S&S, which is the “0 brain cells will be lost” part… a key thing for people who don’t want to spend their days thinking about training and planning and adding and subtracting and producing and planning out blocks etc! Just do it, geet good enough results, focus on other things you care more about

Admittedly this won’t apply to most people on this forum obviously, but certainly is very important to some of us here and a majority of the general population

 

[Adachi]

But let's be realistic...

How many people are going to hit Sinister? And how long, in your life, are you going to maintain that?

Sure.

Maybe my hypothetical is reaching a bit.
Let's say obtaining and maintaining simple is the more appropriate benchmark.

I guess I'd hope that my point still stands that doing 100 swings and 10 getups a few times per week is still a very high return on investment proposition; using 70 lbs instead of 100 lbs.

I estimate that for some people it would be enough. Maybe more than enough.

 

[Steve Freides]

Everything eventually gets stale and adaptation slows. It will inevitably stop delivering good results when compared to a novel stimulus.

“Good results” depends on the goal.

"For life" is a long time to just stick with one routine.

“For life” has been working for me in many areas: wives, for one; being a student, for another. I did my first kettlebell swings 21 years ago and occasionally I even do a pretty decent rep or two now.

How many people are going to hit Sinister?

The book doesn’t suggest that everyone should try, you know.

… there are plenty of Strongfirst programs to graduate to.

For some people, yes, but - see what several of us have been saying over and over in this thread - not everyone wants or needs to.

-S-

 

[silveraw]

So after 4 pages of rigorous pontification and knowledge sharing, the answer is simply “no.”

I’ll be the fist to admit. After I wrote a lengthy response, I flushed, got up and realized “no” would have been the simple direct and correct response.

 

[silveraw]

For life” has been working for me in many areas: wives, for one; being a student, for another. I did my first kettlebell swings 21 years ago and occasionally I even do a pretty decent rep or two now.

You certainly haven’t been doing One routine for 21 years.
Which is the point we are trying to make.

 

[Steve Freides]

You certainly haven’t been doing One routine for 21 years.

Because I've pursued other athletic goals.

And that's the point several of us have tried to make. S&S plainly describes who and what it's for, and yet we continue to have "is S&S enough?" discussions. It's enough for the things it says it's enough for, including but not limited to being enough for people without other athletic goals.

I intend to keep swinging a kettlebell until they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

-S-

 

[watchnerd]

What's the heaviest KB you have managed to hit the timed S&S standards?

Timed? 36 kg.

Timeless, 40 kg.

When I do KB work in the winter now, though, it's all double KB work. I find I get more of what I want from double KBs than single KBs. Most of my KB work is in the 2 x 24, 2 x 28, 2 x 32 range.

 

[GaryT]

Thank you @Steve Freides , I am just as puzzled by the thread since the book spells out clearly what the program is and isn’t

I also think it oversees one of the key points of S&S, which is the “0 brain cells will be lost” part… a key thing for people who don’t want to spend their days thinking about training and planning and adding and subtracting and producing and planning out blocks etc! Just do it, geet good enough results, focus on other things you care more about

Admittedly this won’t apply to most people on this forum obviously, but certainly is very important to some of us here and a majority of the general population

Agree. I’ve read and re-read S/S and I have no questions or anything to add to the content. It’s not like it would be conducive, or good reading, to go further into nuances based on all the possible, individual pursuits and abilities.

This thread feels like twitter replies to a “guru” account for the feels.

 

[Steve Freides]

What does

for the feels

mean?

-S-

 

[Ryan T]

​

View attachment 18187

Thanks. Been a minute since I've read the book.

 

[renegadenate]

To conclude, Simple and Sinister is NOT all you need.

 

[Steve Freides]

To conclude, Simple and Sinister is NOT all you need.

No. For many people, it is.

-S-