Kettlebell Kettlebell Training and Aerobic Capacity: My Case
- Thread starter barrak
- Start date
- Status
Dayz
Level 8 Valued Member
Base building usually refers to building an aerobic base. I assume that's what was meant?
Good questions. Long post ahead, but I’d argue relevant to the overall conversation. We can PM or start a different thread if you’d like to discuss further.
Rather than feign wisdom and true knowledge, I’m going to quote @Al Ciampa, Lord Father of base building:
“Base training is about building a solid and high platform of health & fitness with which, you can jump to a high peak. Taking the several years that is required to accomplish this will not only set the stage to stretch your capability to very high levels, but you will do so with less biological cost. Training with the least amount of biological cost results in greater health, greater overall performance potential, and having more energy and physiological resiliency toward life's other tasks and stressors.
Therefore, you will be able to peak your system on a solid foundation of health, rather than trading your health for your fitness.
The ultimate goal is to slow the aging process to such an infinitesimally small rate of progression that you experience both a long and capable life.”
So base building (or base training) is deeper, well-rounded approach to TRUE GPP. Part of building an aerobic base or bigger tank can be better facilitated by aerobic work that I don’t think kettlebell training alone can do. I think this also ties into what Brett Jones wrote in Bitter Pills And Being Sedentary
How is this a game changer? Overall work capacity, increased mental health and fitness and enhanced recovery from strength work. From a sport perspective, it helps me absorb glycolytic karate practice. I notice in sparring that I recover very fast, calmly nasal breathing both during the match and seconds after going after it while others are mouth breathing, grabbing water and sometimes doubled over. From a kettlebell training perspective, it helped me absorb the stress of training for the SFG I. Overall, I feel far better rounded in my overall ability to just go and get things done all day.
Cheers.
Pete L
Level 6 Valued Member
My resting heart rate has never been so low, which is a quantifiable measure.
That is down to daily walking, S&S, kickboxing and more sleep than I've ever had in my adult life.
The real game changer for me has been getting a dog two years ago. Walking once or twice a day has really helped me switch off and relax.
Antti
Level 10 Valued Member
Yes, I have heard of the aerobic base. But I would expect there to be different levels of it for different needs of it. Like:
I'm not sure how many have tried to climb one with only kettlebell experience behind them, but yes, I am willing to believe that such an adventure would need a bigger aerobic base. However, I would also argue that it is an extreme case.
Great to hear that it all works for you. I was specifically asking for your personal anecdote so thanks for it.
Maybe I'm unnecessarily sceptical, but some of the game changing praise sounds pretty far fetched and hard to measure. But I fully believe in the personal anecdote. I'm just not sure it's categorically applicable.
If we look at the general needs of average people and recommendations such as by the world health organisation, they are perfectly achieved with nothing but kettlebell strength and power training. No need for the dishonor of aerobics - Pavel was right, right?
Indeed! I have an 80 lb black and white standard poodle who overheats in the sunlight in the summer but still needs walking regularly. Out the door by 5 AM for an hour ruck or walk. He refuses to jog.
Adachi
Level 7 Valued Member
Yeah it's a problem That I'm strategizing about, and working up a solution for. But daddy's fitness regime is not sacred. Nor is the space I would use in the garage.
But I have to ask , what is "strength aerobics"?
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
I would posit that ‘average people’ don’t train, nor do they want to (or maybe even need to) train, and many live happy, productive, and somewhat long lives without any S&C. So what their ‘needs’ are is hard to say. (WHO notwithstanding)
The S&C needs of the much smaller percentage of the population that do train, workout, exercise (whatever we want to call it) is as we always say around here, are highly individual, contextual, and goal specific.
Antti
Level 10 Valued Member
Exactly my point. I would argue that the health benefits are so well researched that I would consider it ill-advised to disregard them, but then again, we all live our lives. Outside of that, it is specific. Most can do perfectly well without the dishonor of aerobics.
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
And without strength training as well…
Antti
Level 10 Valued Member
Strength training is in the WHO recommendations, and seen as the more important part as we age...
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
No argument on either of those points…
I think that quote from Pavel is pretty old right? Think about the evolution of the S1 philosophy itself… The approach has gravitated toward Strong Endurance and away from older methods of kettlebell training which tended to be more glycolytic in nature. Other areas of development in S1 include breath work, and incorporating SE principles with running (like All-Terrain Conditioning). What does this mean? It means that as research and time progress, methods change or advance accordingly.
What’s the “category”? The general population? Perhaps we’re not talking about the same thing. Base building is a means to increase health span which must be a multifaceted endeavor. We haven’t really touched on other things such as breathing, nutrition, stress management etc…
Keeping with just the “physical” component to health and wellness, the general population is deconditioned and really needs to get off it’s collective rear end and move, starting by gently elevating the heart rate and add strength training to it. Maintain good quality movement and build strength on it.
The concept of A+A training is to build the two ends of the energy pathway spectrum; it’s a polarized approach. To that end, on the other side of the spectrum we can say that aerobic work without the spectrum of explosive power to strength training is also incomplete.
Walking, an active lifestyle and general aerobic work is a net positive. How could it not be? I don’t know how we can say “great that it works for you.” Our bodies adapted for relatively slow movement over distance and time with brief intense bouts of significant energy expenditure.
Good conversation and exchange here. Thanks for initiating it.
Adachi
Level 7 Valued Member
This was me when training for an introductory combatives course. I was surprised by the workload.
Antti
Level 10 Valued Member
By categorical, I mean universal, applicable for every human being regardless of the context or the specific goals.
I can't see aerobic base building as a mean to increase the health span. Exercise does it, yes. The first steps and reps are the most important ones, yes. I would even be inclined to believe that more is to a degree better. But I think we hit the so called diminished returns very quickly. Part of the reason for the weekly elevated heart rate recommendation by the WHO is certainly practical constraints, but on the other hand, I'm uncertain there is a scientifically proven need to have hours upon hours of it recommended.
And yes, there are many facets to the longevity question. Some more important than others, I can't claim to be able to separate or value them apart, even to identify all of them.
The quote from Pavel is from some years ago. Hard to know what we should quantify as old. Still, regardless of the age and how we see it, is he wrong?
Pete L
Level 6 Valued Member
Strength Aerobics: A Powerful Alternative to HIIT | StrongFirst
Hard-living types love killing themselves in the glycolytic pathway. But this is far from the only way to achieve good conditioning.
www.strongfirst.com
An example; clean, press, squat single bell in one continuous move EMOTM.
This is a great clarification and actually to the point. Health-span is relatively goal-less in the sense that overall it doesn't have specific targets (other than the ones you might set for yourself).
Your point about diminishing returns is well taken and I believe correct when characterized as hours and hours. I'm not suggesting that.
45-60 min 3x per week, alternated with strength training is a great and reasonable place to be. Getting your HR into zone 2 (60-70% of HR max) is a good thing. Heck, even taking a daily brisk 2 mile walk with nasal breathing is certainly better than nothing and easy enough to do. We are also talking about using your body in ways that it is developed to do.
The truth is, I was actually in the camp of "kettlebells can do everything you need" and they certainly cover a lot of what you need. It likely always be my primary mode of strength training and S1+hardstyle principles will likely form that base. Over the last couple years however, even in the process of training for SFG I, I found it helpful.
I'd characterize it as incomplete if you are taking it outside the context of "Fat loss without the dishonor of aerobics." This quote was made in the face of the typical, perhaps less efficient method for fat loss which was (and sometimes still is) LISS work. True, most people need to lose weight, but in terms of health span, I don't know that it covers all the bases.
My purpose in pointing out that S1 has developed and evolved it's methods over time is to give an example of how approaches change given time and research. I would not be surprised if given another 5-10 years, S1 has further changes to it's approach to generating high quality health and wellness.
If all you have (or think you have) is 15-30 min 3x per week, then grab the kettlebell and kick some butt. The truth is we likely all have a little more time than we think we do. I have to roll out the door between 4:30-5 AM get my walk/ruck/jog whatever in and satisfy the dog's energy level. On Sundays I have a little more time and might do something else.
Jalvarado
Level 4 Valued Member
We all tend to do things when it comes to aerobics/cardio that we like to do consistently. As much as I like ballistics or circuit training that mimicked the heart rate zones you’d get from running or other pure endurance protocols, it just feels different. @Pete L as far as a “workout” goes you’d be correct that rowing might be better than running in the way that it uses almost 90% of all muscles. However pure running capacity would keep you fitter in a pure endurance sense. Have a long background in running as a base has made almost every sport or exercise much easier to start for me. Running in zones 2-3-4 made starting a rowing plan simple yet I would find it hard to believe a good rower that only rowed can start up a running plan with little effort. We evolved to run endurance as hunter gatherers and I believe it’s as important as RT for our life.
Antti
Level 10 Valued Member
We're mostly in agreement.
However, I believe that we get practically all of the health span benefits with the WHO recommendations. Maybe a bit more with more exercise, but there are so many facets to it, like we mentioned, that I see them perhaps as a better time investment than more exercise, if things are taken that simply.
Personally, I love strength training, and easily spend a couple of hours almost every day on it. I'd spend more if I had the time. Maybe even do some cardio. As it is, my FitBit tells me I easily get 300-400 minutes of elevated heart rate a week just from my strength training. The WHO recommendation is for at least 150 minutes.
Apart from the strength training I get some more minutes in with chores and with work.
How would my health improve by spending more time building an aerobic base? I don't see it. In my book, Pavel was right.
Thanks for sharing this!
Ultimately, the idea behind base building which incorporates the two ends of the spectrum (if you want to call it that) is that balancing out how you train will in the end result in the best long-term adaptations at the least biological cost. HR metrics are only one component. There may be other markers of longer term quality of life that could be relevant here.
I’m actually a reluctant convert. I didn’t even begin any physical training until my late 30s. Originally I only did kettlebell training, loved it and still love it, but after starting to incorporate more aerobic work in, I’ve found it to be more beneficial that just kettlebell (or general strength) training alone. They balance each other out nicely.
Rather than trying to convince you of something, perhaps experiment with it yourself…
For the next 1-2 years take those 300-400 minutes of training time per week and split it between the strength training you do now and aerobic development and see what happens. You might surprise yourself and find something new you enjoy and enhance your quality of life in ways you didn’t anticipate. If at the end of that 1-2 years, it’s been a detractor or not a value add, then shift back to your original mode of operation. I don’t know how old you are, but if you live another 50 years, that’s only 2-4% of the rest of your life and aerobic development both takes a longer, but that doesn’t mean that the benefits aren’t powerful.
Cheers.
- Status