all posts post new thread

Kettlebell Kettlebell Cardio & Endurance

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
  • Here is a typical HIIT session as I would define it: 20 sec all-out effort followed by 1 min 40 sec easy pedal on Airdyne, repeat 5x total (10 minutes). Add a few minutes of easy warm-up and cool-down to the beginning and end. The hard work efforts are 20 seconds long.
  • Here is a typical glycolytic peaking session as I would define it: 2 min snatches, rest 2 minutes, 2-3 minutes snatches at a pace slightly higher than 5-min snatch pace, rest 2 minutes, repeat 2-3 more times. The hard work efforts are 2-3 minutes long.

I would have to say neither at first glance, but if I had to choose one it would be the 2nd.
If I had to describe VWC to someone new and use an analogy I would choose a race car. That is, you run the car at 90+% speed with the aim of increasing performance, let's say it's a magic car that will adapt on it's own to certain stimulus. So you slowly 'train' the car to run at 90+% for a pre-determined max time of 40 mins. Once you get to 40 mins strongly you add 100 lbs to the passenger seat and then build up once again to running the full 40 mins strongly, then you add another 100 lbs and repeat. Now your engine is getting stronger and adapting to carrying the extra load at a fast pace and you repeat this procedure until you can carry an extra 1000 lbs at the same speed thereby gaining true power. While you're doing this the frame and and suspension of the car are getting stronger and lighter at the same time and shedding unnecessary metal to decrease weight. As all this is going on the wheels are turning with less friction and the exhaust pipes are enlarging as is the O2 intake system, after all, an engine's power is determined by how much air you can pump through the system.
That is only the first part of the training, next you see improvements in the car being able to eliminate excess carbon buildups in the system and filter it's oil more efficiently. The cooling system expands and in size and efficiency so car runs with less heat buildup as heat robs energy and thereby power from the system.
I could go on but this is the basic overview I took from Kenneth Jay's work. I think it's brilliant and rivals S&S in it's simplicity and brutal effectiveness as the benefits stack up one upon the other.
In my example you get a race car in the end that's more powerful (much more), lighter and more durable (as in strength and power endurance) for the rigors of the track.
 
What a great thread! Lots of great sharing here, as always.
So much happening here, my favorite thread of all time me thinks :)

By "too much risk" in the example of using VWC, I actually meant two different things, so let me clarify. First, by taking training time and recovery energy away from the primary sport, you risk your eventual performance. If you're invested in that goal performance, why risk it with a training deviation? Also, any training at that intensity carries real risk of injury and burnout. Why carry that risk with a supplementary activity?

Ahhh, ok you were speaking in terms of say a marathon prep or something like it and deviating into a different training mode unnecessarily..

Which is of course different from training their junk, but I digress . . .
ROFL I usually hate when people 'digress' but that was good

I've come to realize that all fitness attributes are skills, whether they seem that way consciously or not. To the body, it's a skill at the metabolic level, structural etc. beyond what we consciously think of as technique. To the body, running is just as much a skill to be learned and improved as anything else. How does one improve any skill? Right, practice. Since the key component of a marathon program is the long run, the idea that the other runs are "junk" is nothing new. Many programs have come and gone trying to replace the "junk" with "quality." Mixed results, they can work for experienced runners who already have a great base and lots of experience. But most people need a lot more practice. To draw an analogy to SF, since S&S, PTTP, GT(, etc. consists of daily moderate efforts, any single session isn't that important and can be missed, right? Does that make them "junk?"

I hope not.
No[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Also, no conversation about training intensities would be complete without spec'ing the goal or event.

Even GPP means a lot of different stuff for a lot of people. Eg Clarence Bass spends a lot of his dedicated training time at high intensity, but he also does relatively easy walks on a daily. I don't agree with everything he asserts, but I'd have a tough time defending that if I were standing in front of the man.


--“Most people don’t train hard enough,” Bass tells me. “They train too much, but not with enough intensity. You have to look at training as breaking yourself down. If you aren’t getting sore and letting yourself recover, then you’re not getting any benefit.”

Bass believes that too many people fall into the “black hole,” a no-growth zone of medium-intensity effort that neither pushes the body far enough nor allows it to recover. The solution, he insists, is a binary approach involving complementary high- and low-intensity sessions, supported by a whole-foods diet and cycling through periodized lifting programs every few months. “You have to always be looking for ways to improve,” Bass says. “Once you decide you’re just going to maintain, you’re toast.”--
 
Ah yes, the terminology gets confusing.

All the discussion I've encountered regarding junk miles refers to short to moderate length, low intensity sessions because they don't seem to be doing anything. Not long enough, or hard enough. But what they do is reinforce, maintain, and build base aerobic fitness. That's why I use the marathon program example. Many people question the value of those weekday runs.

What Anna is calling junk I have always seen referred to as "gray zone" or "no man's land." Exactly as Anna describes it, not hard enough to get those benefits, not easy enough for base benefits, but requiring some dedicated recovery.

BUT, those intensities are actual race intensity for many longer events, leading one coach I listen to describe it as the "money zone" since it is race specific. For cycling, it's now often referred to as "sweet spot" training. It's lower intensity than typical LT intervals, putting it as high tempo by most rubrics.

I haven't tried it yet, but what I think makes sweet spot different from no man's land is structure and programming. Sweet spot training uses work and recovery intervals, as well as considering the recovery issues required by those sessions. No man's land is when people just get swept along by the effort to something kinda hard but fun, but don't balance out the effort with appropriate recovery.
If you do try it will you please report your results here? Thanks
 
“You have to always be looking for ways to improve,” Bass says. “Once you decide you’re just going to maintain, you’re toast.”--

I agree! This is one of the hardest concepts I have to get across to my personal training clients. Drive hard for improvements in some area. Then change it up and drive hard for improvements in some other area. Always be training (as opposed to just exericising) towards increased ability/performance/health/fitness. You won't run out of room in the space for improvement ahead of you...

However, it's often wise to aim for maintenance in one area while improving in others. For example, I'm just maintaining my bike riding, while focusing on improving my strength.
 
I would have to say neither at first glance, but if I had to choose one it would be the 2nd.
If I had to describe VWC to someone new and use an analogy I would choose a race car.

I like your description and you're probably right in your assessment.

At Strong Endurance, we learned about many training protocols that were similar to this... however, I'm thinking they all had more recovery time and were less glycolytic. The idea being similar to the racecar analogy, but with less acidocis and stress.
 
I like your description and you're probably right in your assessment.

At Strong Endurance, we learned about many training protocols that were similar to this... however, I'm thinking they all had more recovery time and were less glycolytic. The idea being similar to the racecar analogy, but with less acidocis and stress.

You're right about at least one thing for sure, VWC is exposing my soft underbelly in terms of glycolytic training and its siren song for me. I think after 30 yrs MA and hard glycolytic training I've become addicted to it, the hard GT portion of classes usually ran 30 to 40 mins so that's what 'feels' normal to me. VWC just happens to mimic what I'm used to, having said that I'm reminded of something @vegpedlr said earlier about base building over a period of years. Perhaps that is my base.
I've been going hard with VWC and backing off when needed but so far it's only making me stronger.

What it's doing for me so far:

- My aerobic base is definitely improving.
- Legs, back and shoulders are more durable.
- Strength gains are transferring to getups, heavy swing clusters and heavy clean clusters.
- Snatch technique improvements are through the roof, I'm starting to find the perfect groove and timing zone without even thinking about it.
 
I have to admit... it's pretty interesting to see so much traction on 'conditioning' (and heart health) on a strength forum.
Good stuff!

Probably the only 'better' thread is the one on what pants to wear whilst training....:)
One of the reasons I love this forum. There is quite a bit of diversity in people's training goals and methods. So much to learn from! I think KB training itself is part of the reason as it is so different in the way it blends strength and endurance from what most of us have done in the gym previously. Very versatile, but with versatility comes some complexity if you're trying to use KBs to help performance in another sport, not just getting better at KB events.
 
Agreed 100%. Variety is the spice of life.
Besides the diversity in training goals and methods, there is also a pretty wide and deep history in a lot of sports, and athletic and tactical pursuits of the forum participants.
 
I must admit my frustration here, there is such a great pool of knowledge on this forum spanning many decades of real experience and study. It seems that specific knowledge on VWC (which is what I seek) is limited so I'll be pioneering of sorts with it, I know there are people out there with vast amounts of experience with the protocol but they are inaccessible to me.
That's alright though as it makes things more interesting.

I am curious about the comparison of certain adaptations as they relate across differing training modes. Taking VWC and comparing with LED or Zone 1-2 training. As I understand it the biggest bang for the buck with LED is expansion and increased flexibility of the left ventricle chamber.

My question is that if as KJ claims (it's been proven I think) that the chamber does indeed expand and the heart wall thickens as well with his protocol is that somehow different from the effects of LED caused expansion? I realise there are many other adaptations in play with both formats, probably with some overlapping I would assume. This is the type of info that I seek, maybe it's not out there?
 
@Anna C, a group road ride is a less than ideal setting for measuring performance. (I know you must know this, just pointing it out.) The group's speed isn't going to change because one person got faster, so much of it is staying out of the wind, etc. I'd think a solo, e.g., a time trial, might be place where one could spot a difference on the clock.

For anyone reading along, I was a pretty serious roadie in my day - never a racer but trained with a pretty good mix of riders including some racers.

-S-
 
One of the reasons I love this forum. There is quite a bit of diversity in people's training goals and methods. So much to learn from! I think KB training itself is part of the reason as it is so different in the way it blends strength and endurance from what most of us have done in the gym previously. Very versatile, but with versatility comes some complexity if you're trying to use KBs to help performance in another sport, not just getting better at KB events.
From our SF Database:
Strong First Member Sports:
Aikido
Alpinism
Archery
Backpacking
Baseball
Basketball
Bodybuilding
Bouldering
Boxing
Cycling Road
Cycling MTB
Diving
Football (American)
Girevoy Sport
Golf
Gymnastics
Iaido
Ice Hockey
Judo
Ju-Jitsu
Karate
Kendo
Kenjutsu
Kite Boarding
Krav Maga
Olympic Weight Lifting
Pilates
Power Lifting
Rock Climbing
Rowing
Rugby
Running
Swimming
Skiing Alpine
Skiing XC
Soccer
Softball
Surfing
Tai-Chi
Tennis
Track and Field
Yoga...
 
From our SF Database:
Strong First Member Sports:
Aikido
Alpinism
Archery
Backpacking
Baseball
Basketball
Bodybuilding
Bouldering
Boxing
Cycling Road
Cycling MTB
Diving
Football (American)
Girevoy Sport
Golf
Gymnastics
Iaido
Ice Hockey
Judo
Ju-Jitsu
Karate
Kendo
Kenjutsu
Kite Boarding
Krav Maga
Olympic Weight Lifting
Pilates
Power Lifting
Rock Climbing
Rowing
Rugby
Running
Swimming
Skiing Alpine
Skiing XC
Soccer
Softball
Surfing
Tai-Chi
Tennis
Track and Field
Yoga...
Curling? I do some now and then..:p
 
I must admit my frustration here, there is such a great pool of knowledge on this forum spanning many decades of real experience and study. It seems that specific knowledge on VWC (which is what I seek) is limited so I'll be pioneering of sorts with it, I know there are people out there with vast amounts of experience with the protocol but they are inaccessible to me.
That's alright though as it makes things more interesting.

I am curious about the comparison of certain adaptations as they relate across differing training modes. Taking VWC and comparing with LED or Zone 1-2 training. As I understand it the biggest bang for the buck with LED is expansion and increased flexibility of the left ventricle chamber.

My question is that if as KJ claims (it's been proven I think) that the chamber does indeed expand and the heart wall thickens as well with his protocol is that somehow different from the effects of LED caused expansion? I realise there are many other adaptations in play with both formats, probably with some overlapping I would assume. This is the type of info that I seek, maybe it's not out there?

I am reminded a bit about what Nassim Nicholas Taleb said in Anti-Fragile... I am totally paraphrasing and going on memory here...

We may continually come up with new reasons why certain things happen, but the results of doing those things remains the same

Words to that effect anyway...
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom