Kettlebell Kettlebell Cardio & Endurance

[vegpedlr]

With 3 hrs a week to train, I would do a 50/50 split between MAF and basic strength work. Thirty minutes a day, or three one hour sessions, evenly split between 30 min Strength sessions and 30 min aerobic sessions. Nothing good happens without a good base, and for general health fitness and enjoyment of life, you don't really need any more. Unless you want to do more.

 

[Augustus F-N]

With 3 hrs a week to train, I would do a 50/50 split between MAF and basic strength work. Thirty minutes a day, or three one hour sessions, evenly split between 30 min Strength sessions and 30 min aerobic sessions. Nothing good happens without a good base, and for general health fitness and enjoyment of life, you don't really need any more. Unless you want to do more.

Did precisely this for a couple of years. 30 minutes each day, no days off, alternating strength days and aerobic days (running/jump rope). Worked a treat.

 

[vegpedlr]

It's how a lot of us "exercised" back in the day, you know those pre-internet dark ages of the 70s and 80s. Without the million options of the distracting interwebs, lots of people just alternated a strength day in the gym, with an aerobic day on the roads. Three days of each a week, and it seemed to work pretty well.

 

[vegpedlr]

It's how a lot of us "exercised" back in the day, you know those pre-internet dark ages of the 70s and 80s. Without the million options of the distracting interwebs, lots of people just alternated a strength day in the gym, with an aerobic day on the roads. Three days of each a week, and it seemed to work pretty well.

The suddenly, tons of training info became instantly available, and overnight everyone became an expert, and everybody was an advanced trainee. You needed a spreadsheet in the gym to organize your advanced double split bodybuilding routine, and a spreadsheet at the track to organize your advanced interval session. Of course, that became too much, so you chose sides and trash talked those who didn't train like you.

I think the WTH?! effect of KB training is simply the expected outcome of good GPP. Progress on the basics, and everything else gets better.

What a concept!

 

[Alan Mackey]

It's how a lot of us "exercised" back in the day, you know those pre-internet dark ages of the 70s and 80s. Without the million options of the distracting interwebs, lots of people just alternated a strength day in the gym, with an aerobic day on the roads. Three days of each a week, and it seemed to work pretty well.

I just read the above, hearing Dan Martin’s voice in my head. It’s not the first time this happens with your posts (here and on the other forum).

 

[vegpedlr]

I take that as a compliment, but DM might not!

It wasn't until learning from the two Dans and Pavel about strength and Maffetone for endurance that things made sense. It occurred to me that back in the 80s if you just wanted to "work out" and "get fit'" whatever that means, you went to the gym M-W-F and did a simple full body routine without a lot of gimmicks. Alternate days you went for a run. But then somehow that became too "basic" and meant you were only a beginner. You needed "advanced" training.

If only I could get back the time I lost on those detours!

 

[Bret S.]

It occurred to me that back in the 80s if you just wanted to "work out" and "get fit'" whatever that means, you went to the gym M-W-F and did a simple full body routine without a lot of gimmicks.

What worked back then for me were supersets of opposing muscle groups. 6 day split of:
Day 1 - SS Bi's & Tri's then Delts
Day 2 - Leg day
Day 3 - SS Chest & Back then abs
10 reps was my 'magic number and I just subbed in different exercises as needed. Rode some miles and ran some through the week, worked very well.

Later I adopted 3 full body sessions M-W-F, it worked well, especially when I wasn't so concerned with hypertrophy. 30 mins weights, 30 mins cardio M-W-F is a very solid strategy IMHO

 

[Marlon Leon]

Why one but not the other? Why not both? Not at the same time, but every training modality loses its effect eventually, which is the right time to switch from steady state cardio to intervals or the other way around. Both have different physiological effects. So why not do both in the cause of a year?

 

[North Coast Miller]

What worked back then for me were supersets of opposing muscle groups. 6 day split of:
Day 1 - SS Bi's & Tri's then Delts
Day 2 - Leg day
Day 3 - SS Chest & Back then abs
10 reps was my 'magic number and I just subbed in different exercises as needed. Rode some miles and ran some through the week, worked very well.

Later I adopted 3 full body sessions M-W-F, it worked well, especially when I wasn't so concerned with hypertrophy. 30 mins weights, 30 mins cardio M-W-F is a very solid strategy IMHO

Chest and Bis
Legs and Tris
Back and shoulders
Rinse and repeat, take off Sunday

I did ascending pyramids then and still do when practical, though I've also switched to whole body work. Used to do a long warmup of jumprope and heavybag but that's been nixed for quite some time.

Personally I don't have the hours in the week to train LSD or HIIT with regularity, and until recently back and heel spur issues kept me from running much at all. The 80/20 principle seems to have a lot of successful application where practical. Tough to argue against it - 4 days LSD to one session of HIIT, which is pretty much what the literature concludes.

For myself I train my 3-4x weekly with a bit of intensity and occasionally run them in a shorter rest/lower load circuit for more of a metcon. I'm not competing, so I aim to help my cardio in as short a time as possible. For what I'm doing I have plenty of surplus.

 

[Antti]

How exactly has the understanding of HIIT changed?

 

[North Coast Miller]

How exactly has the understanding of HIIT changed?

The only "recent" revelations I'm aware of is how unproductive it is for improving endurance to train the middle ground of intensity/HR range, leading to a lot more deliberate application of LSD principles.

HIIT understanding hasn't changed, but misapplication/misattribution of benefits by folks who haven't read the actual study protocols has declined now that more head to head research has been done.

Keeping in mind we're talking about longer duration endurance.

 

[PeaceMan]

If anyone is interested, a good book from a HIIT perspective is 'One Minute Workout' by Martin Gibala. There are points during the book where I think he is comparing apples and oranges and where I thing, "I don't think you can extrapolate x from y, there," but still thought-provoking.

 

[MikeTheBear]

I'd wonder also if it matters what muscles in the body are triggering the cardio responses, or if any muscles will do. I.e., does it matter if it's always only the legs that are triggering "cardio" training - so walking or running? Or, is it important to ensure that the upper body is also triggering cardio training, so things like swings or swimming or something like that which engages the upper body and elicits a "cardio" response.

If you are training for "general cardio health," then it doesn't matter. Just do some type of cardio. This only becomes an issue if you are training for an endurance event. For instance, if you want to run a triathlon and all you do is run and bike, you will not be happy during the swim portion.

Quick anecdote illustrating this. Shortly after Lance Armstrong retired from cycling he decided to run the New York Marathon. As a pro cyclist, his team kept data on everything. Some experts asked to see the data so they could predict how Armstrong would do. Based on his VO2max and other factors, the experts predicted that he could win the race. Armstrong finished just over 3 hours. Three hours is a very respectable time for an amateur runner, but considering that Armstrong theoretically could have won the race, his time was about 1 hour off the winning time. Why? Because the longest run Armstrong did in training was 13 miles. Almost all marathon training plans require at least one long run of 20 miles to prepare. He said after the race that his heart and lungs were fine and from a cardiopulmonary perspective the race was easy. His legs, however, were not happy.

Specificity for the win.

 

[Bret S.]

I don't think any sort of HIIT is necessary for a "very healthy heart." All the health benefits can be gained with low intensity aerobic exercise and at a fairly low volume.

Are you talking about us (generally higher performers) or Joe Blo sitting on the couch most of the week, getting out for an easy jog 2 times/wk? Meaning general heart health improvement vs doing nothing or little else. Probably we're getting into the realm of definitions again?

Only with specific performance objectives does increased intensity or volume become necessary and that also comes with risk

This kind of drills down into the meat of the discussion for me. When talking about specificity of sport or fitness goals I would really like to know where VWC fits into the continuum. How do you classify it? It's not HIIT and it's definitely not LED, it's more like training your motor to run at high speed and efficiency while building both strength and aerobic endurance for an extended period of time. The loads are relatively light but the volume accumulates quickly to top loads out at several tons per session, we're talking 490 lbs/min for 40 mins in the 15:15 protocol with a 16k bell x 7 reps on the half minute.

I haven't been doing it long enough to really field test it. What benefits would one expect in terms of performance? I realise there are rules of specificity in play but say you were biking for miles per hour (literally) trying to go as far and fast as possible in say 40 mins. Say you have a biking contest between A+A, LED and VWC. All things being equal, e.g. each person is well adapted to the rigors of pedaling in all comparison scenarios of one person doing VWC vs a person doing A+A vs. a person doing LED training with no other aerobic conditioning for prep. Let's say our competitors are all clones of the same athlete and racing under identical environmental circumstances. Who in this scenario would have the aerobic advantage? I know this question is totally hypothetical and impossible to answer with certainty but what I'm after is if you have a preference as to who would prevail I'm interested to know the reasons why. Feel free to get as geeky as necessary on specifics. This is an open question for anyone wishing to opine..

 

[offwidth]

It's an interesting thought experiment. But fraught with technical stuff.
The VWC person obviously did VWC (I really don't know the specifics of it) to get their fitness. The A + A person did what? Snatches? That seems to be what is common. The LED person did what? Running, cycling, rowing? LED is most commonly associated with aerobic locomotive work. Now 40min is a really short time, where one could easily go anaerobic for a large percentage so I am guessing, maybe the A+A or VWC might have an edge. However the longer the duration of the event, (and more aerobic) I think the balance might shift to the LED person. Say cycling something in the range of 6 hrs.

 

[Anna C]

I haven't been doing it long enough to really field test it. What benefits would one expect in terms of performance? I realise there are rules of specificity in play but say you were biking for miles per hour (literally) trying to go as far and fast as possible in say 40 mins. Say you have a biking contest between A+A, LED and VWC. All things being equal, e.g. each person is well adapted to the rigors of pedaling in all comparison scenarios of one person doing VWC vs a person doing A+A vs. a person doing LED training with no other aerobic conditioning for prep. Let's say our competitors are all clones of the same athlete and racing under identical environmental circumstances. Who in this scenario would have the aerobic advantage? I know this question is totally hypothetical and impossible to answer with certainty but what I'm after is if you have a preference as to who would prevail I'm interested to know the reasons why. Feel free to get as geeky as necessary on specifics. This is an open question for anyone wishing to opine..

I've been a recreational road cyclists for 10 years now riding the same roads, same rides, with mostly the same people almost every Sunday and sometimes additional rides during the week. Our usual rides are 1.5-2 hrs (30-40ish miles), but some longer rides up to metric centries and centuries (62 and 100 miles). Because I've been doing the same thing so long, I probably meet your hypothectical scenario. And during these years I've also done different training focuses such as A+A swings and snatch programs, TSC snatch prep (glycolytic training), running, cycling base training (LSD up to 10 hrs per week), and several years ago some more specific cycling training with lactate threshold intervals, power intervals, etc.

The bottom line is that none of it made a whole lot of difference. By that I mean maybe 10%, give or take. I always seem to ride about the same, and I have 10 years worth of Garmin data to back that up. My moving averages (other than the slow social rides) are almost all between 17.5 and 20 mph. The biggest factors in my riding ability are 1) staying healthy and active and 2) riding regularly so that I don't lose that specific ability and associated adaptations. Much of the slight variation that I do see are from non-training-related factors; for example, bodyweight - lighter helps cycling performance -- and weather/heat tolerance, here in Mississippi.

But with that said, I think that within the 10% or so difference, I have experienced some differences from training that can be described:

• Additional LSD/LED training increases my ability to ride long and easily recover (endurance). The effort for the normal group ride becomes more aerobic and less stressful, and I'm more likely to be able to nose-breathe for most of the ride.
• A+A training seemed to delay the onset of muscle burn during a hard effort, increase my ability to recover quickly after a hill or sprint effort, and kept my body strong overall.
• Barbell squats and deadlifts have made my leg muscles significantly stronger for hills and other brief efforts. (No need to downshift!)
• Glycolytic training (like TSC snatch prep) seems to increase my tolerance for a hard 2-3 min effort involving high power output, breathing, and heart rate -- but this one is easy come, easy go.
• Lactate threshold riding makes the biggest difference in the ability to maintain an overall higher moving average for the duration of the ride.
• Bodyweight strength training and get-ups seem to help me stay connected on the bike. This is even more noticeable with the mountain bike.

Is that sort of what you were wondering?

 

[MikeTheBear]

I haven't been doing it long enough to really field test it. What benefits would one expect in terms of performance? I realise there are rules of specificity in play but say you were biking for miles per hour (literally) trying to go as far and fast as possible in say 40 mins. Say you have a biking contest between A+A, LED and VWC. All things being equal, e.g. each person is well adapted to the rigors of pedaling in all comparison scenarios of one person doing VWC vs a person doing A+A vs. a person doing LED training with no other aerobic conditioning for prep. Let's say our competitors are all clones of the same athlete and racing under identical environmental circumstances. Who in this scenario would have the aerobic advantage? I know this question is totally hypothetical and impossible to answer with certainty but what I'm after is if you have a preference as to who would prevail I'm interested to know the reasons why. Feel free to get as geeky as necessary on specifics. This is an open question for anyone wishing to opine..

It's an interesting thought experiment. But fraught with technical stuff.
The VWC person obviously did VWC (I really don't know the specifics of it) to get their fitness. The A + A person did what? Snatches? That seems to be what is common. The LED person did what? Running, cycling, rowing? LED is most commonly associated with aerobic locomotive work. Now 40min is a really short time, where one could easily go anaerobic for a large percentage so I am guessing, maybe the A+A or VWC might have an edge. However the longer the duration of the event, (and more aerobic) I think the balance might shift to the LED person. Say cycling something in the range of 6 hrs.

Indeed an interesting thought experiment. I think the point by @offwidth that this would be a short bike race is a good point, but I would still give the edge to the guy who just trained cycling and nothing else. But. . .

We need some more clarification on the rules. Are the guys doing VWC and A+A doing that in addition to their cycling? Or, do we give each trainee something like 2 hours of training time each day and the guys doing VWC and A+A need to fit those protocols within that 2-hour time restriction along with their cycling? If it's in addition to cycling, then the VWC and A+A have the clear advantage.

I think this is where VWC and A+A becomes very useful for the "regular person" training to finish a marathon for example. Most marathon training plans have one long run a week which is not negotiable - it must be done if you want to finish and actually enjoy the marathon. These runs are schedule for the weekend to give the "regular person" a good chance of being able to complete the long run. Shorter runs are scheduled during the week. Some have called these shorter runs "junk miles" because if you miss one here and there it won't derail your training. Others swear that you cannot miss even these short runs. How about a middle ground where you replace a short run each week with either VWC or A+A? This would add some variety, the workouts may take less time than a short run (but that depends), it might save some wear and tear on the joints, and is the answer to the excuse "but the weather sucks and I don't want to run?"

 

[vegpedlr]

@BrettS

By general health I mean effects on longevity and mortality, which apply to mostly sedentary folk. But it also might apply to someone who is primarily a strength and power athlete not interested in endurance. The research on this quantifies exercise by minutes per week and intensity quite modestly. It doesn't take much to get the benefits, or the point of diminishing returns. The only reason to do more is if you have performance goals that require more endurance or you just enjoy the activities.

I don't really know much about VWC, so can't comment much but in a general way. I understand it is a VO2MAX training protocol.

From my understanding and experience, Anna's comments are spot on. My experience in triathlon may provide a little additional insight.

Multi sport training is a little tricky. We'll discount swimming because it's a completely different kettle of fish. (Ha!) But running and cycling are both leg dominant, using the same muscles, but with different movement patterns.

Generally, it's accepted that the opposite ends of intensity cross over from sport to sport. So base training and VO2MAX Max training in one sport will benefit the other, probably because they both derive many of their benefits from circulatory and metabolic adaptations. But sport specificity is still super important. Triathletes are fast, but not nearly as fast as specialists. Lance Armstrong's marathon experiences are another example. In the middle Zones of intensity, tempo, LT, etc. are very sport specific, and that is where is the action is. Those are race intensities.

So would something like VWC, with its VO2MAX focus cross over to another sport, like MTB racing? I've often wondered, and I think the answer is maybe a little. The problem, aside from sport specificity, as Anna observed, is that high end fitness develops quickly and fades easily. I don't see why someone would want to try to train that quality outside the specific sport. Too much risk.

But maybe someone can't train the primary sport, but does have access to KBs. Could they replace some of that fitness? I don't know.

 

[offwidth]

But maybe someone can't train the primary sport, but does have access to KBs. Could they replace some of that fitness? I don't know.

Maybe a little. But less and less as you progress in performance.
S.A.I.D.

 

[Kozushi]

Lots of wisdom here from actual experience! Wow!

I'm noticing scaling back S&S a bit in favour of getting heavier with deadlifts and presses is quite clearly and noticeably benefiting my judo. This might reflect what several of you including Anna and Vegpedlr are saying about it being hard to maintain high level power gains but as Anna seems to intimate, gains made in absolute strength are easily maintained and applicable to sports no matter what kind of absolute strength they are - bodyweight & TGU, deadlifts and squats etc. Vegpedlr makes an important point regarding "cardio" - "It doesn't take much to get the benefits, or the point of diminishing returns." I think this is pretty clear for me. Sure, I can get out of "cardio" shape if I sit around doing nothing all week, but it doesn't take much to get back to handling 90 minutes of judo athleticism. My instinctive trick after being off for a week or so being ill has been to go on a long walk the day before my judo restart, and I'm fine for judo the next day or the day after. I also remember once going on a two hour run through the woods with some serious recreational marathoners and the only difference in terms of ability to keep up between me and them was that when we went steeply uphill they were able to accelerate but I kept putting at the same speed - the only "running" I was doing at the time before this experience was some jogging more or less "on the spot" in the basement for 20-30 minutes or so from time to time. It did indeed seem like it took very little preparation and maintenance to be able to handle a 2 hour run up and down hills through the woods.

This all seems to lead to the conclusions that you're best off working with maximum strength moves like deadlifts, presses etc and to keep upping the weight as you feel like it, and as for "cardio" to make sure you get in some hour or more long walks or a few cycles or runs during the week, OR get it from the sport you're playing. This would seem to be the "thing" for the vast majority of us mostly interested in longevity, putting off mortality, everyday life, and also performance in athletics at a recreational level. If you're peaking for a sport competition, then you'll want to get your power in order - swings/snatches/Olympic lifts(?), but otherwise it's a question as to why you're putting the effort into this which is so "easy come, easy go".