Kettlebell Kettlebell Training and Aerobic Capacity: My Case

[Antti]

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.

Thanks for the advice.

However, that is a massive, massive investment you're asking for.

I don't like cardio. The biggest reason for my training is my enjoyment. I also compete in strength sports, so I need to spend a lot of time on strength training.

I don't believe there is anything in the aerobic base building for me. I don't feel there is anything in it.

I also don't see any peer reviewed science advising for it, for more than I already do. I don't see a rational reason to do it.

If I won the lottery and didn't have to work, I would likely try it out in some way, if for nothing else just to see if I like it or not. However, I don't have the time to try it out now as I see the chance of it being beneficial so low.

 

[Ryan T]

Thanks for the advice.

However, that is a massive, massive investment you're asking for.

I don't like cardio. The biggest reason for my training is my enjoyment. I also compete in strength sports, so I need to spend a lot of time on strength training.

I don't believe there is anything in the aerobic base building for me. I don't feel there is anything in it.

I also don't see any peer reviewed science advising for it, for more than I already do. I don't see a rational reason to do it.

If I won the lottery and didn't have to work, I would likely try it out in some way, if for nothing else just to see if I like it or not. However, I don't have the time to try it out now as I see the chance of it being beneficial so low.

Appreciate the response and perspective.

Do what makes you happy and if that means 300-400 minutes of strength training per week then have at it.

If you end up deciding to do something different along the lines of the experiment I suggested, make sure to log it; I’d be interested in your observations and experience.

EDIT: And it’s not really a massive investment. If you live another 50 years, that’s like 2-4% of your life and if it ended up enhancing the quality of your life then all the better.

 

[Antti]

Appreciate the response and perspective.

Do what makes you happy and if that means 300-400 minutes of strength training per week then have at it.

If you end up deciding to do something different along the lines of the experiment I suggested, make sure to log it; I’d be interested in your observations and experience.

EDIT: And it’s not really a massive investment. If you live another 50 years, that’s like 2-4% of your life and if it ended up enhancing the quality of your life then all the better.

To be clear, I get 300-400 minutes of elevated heart rate from my strength training. The actual training takes more time.

Also, most of the elevated zone minutes are at a relatively low heart rate.

2-4% of my life is massive, absolutely massive. It's massive even if I saw advantage in it. Like said, maybe if I didn't have work, wife, and kids, but I do.

 

[ali]

It's something I often ponder too.....the difference between the low intensity heart rates.....

If it is considered that zone 2, maf number, talk test, easy is governed by time spent doing it and that is both for health and performance markers, then what about zone 1 stuff, lower intensity, walking, gentle but with hr above resting rate, where does that fall?

So 2 or 3 sessions of zone 2 for 45 minutes v 7 or 8 hours of low intensity movement everyday.

If a person is mostly inactive other than a couple of aerobic sessions a week surely that can't be as healthy as a very active person moving all day everyday with a low heart rate?

The must do aerobic exercise is a proxy for the loss of activity in modern lifestyles, maybe?

Generally, that is outside of sport or performance considerations.

If limited zone 2 is a good buffer to strength training then loads of unlimited zone 1 activity could be better....or not make any difference?

 

[Ryan T]

To be clear, I get 300-400 minutes of elevated heart rate from my strength training. The actual training takes more time.

Also, most of the elevated zone minutes are at a relatively low heart rate.

2-4% of my life is massive, absolutely massive. It's massive even if I saw advantage in it. Like said, maybe if I didn't have work, wife, and kids, but I do.

Totally get it! I’m same boat! Job, wife, 2 kids and a demanding dog (that loves the walk/ruck/jog). Balancing your life out is no easy task to be sure.

To be clear, I haven’t been suggesting to add aerobic work on, but to devote more of your existing training time to it and less of it to strength specific work.

Just remember, if civilization is temporary, then one it could pretty advantageous to move under load for long distances. Good case for rucking (if you’re not doing that already), which also can double as aerobic work.

My aerobic development today consisted of rucking with 50 lbs on my back over the course of an hour for a little over 3.6 miles with the dog. I’m 155 lbs.

You could ruck, take the wife and kids with you and boom, you got your aerobic work in and spend time with the family. Win-win.

But seriously, in the end, do what makes you happy. You’re probably doing better than 99% of the Western world.

 

[NormanOsborn]

How much have you been running lately? I believe non-runners recruit fast twitch muscle fiber even at low intensity, which drives up the heart rate and is less aerobic. It takes a while to get efficient enough at running to make it a good aerobic slow twitch activity. This situation is further exacerbated if carrying excess bodyweight-- fat mass, lean mass, or both.

Isn't there a saying along the lines of, "Get fit to run, don't run to get fit"?

 

[Alaska80]

This post may come across as argumentative, but it really is not my intention. We are all free to make choices, but there is too much evidence both anecdotal and researched that supports a strong aerobic base.

Game changer for health measured how?

Base building as in base for what?

The WHO recommendation regarding aerobic work that you are citing is the bare minimum the evidence suggests will keep an individual from dying of heart disease or another related illness. It is not the quantity that maximizes health, but is a minimum effective dose to hopefully not die.

I have read the journals, but am not going to dig out the references. The literature is out there if you choose to pursue it.
LSS cardio makes the body far more metabolically efficient. It does this in ways strength training does not. A strong aerobic base also leads to much quicker recovery times between bursts of energy, which directly affects strength training in a positive way.

As for base building. It is base building for every activity that one would want to engage in, which is different for different folks, some need a larger base than others. As @offwidth said, no amount of KB swinging or snatching in the world is going to get you the base you need for mountaineering and the WHO recommendations would build an aerobic base that would allow you to possibly climb a small hill without dying.

Here is a very direct application of base building: I am about to embark on a 10 day expedition in the Brooks Range of Alaska. We will cover anywhere from 30-50 miles on foot gaining a total of about 15-20 thousand feet of elevation. All this with a pack that will weigh between 50-75lbs. This would not even remotely be possible if a LARGE aerobic base were not present.

I don't like cardio. The biggest reason for my training is my enjoyment. I also compete in strength sports, so I need to spend a lot of time on strength training.

I don't believe there is anything in the aerobic base building for me. I don't feel there is anything in it.

I also don't see any peer reviewed science advising for it, for more than I already do. I don't see a rational reason to do it.

Your above statement really articulates your position. You do not like cardio, totally fine, it's your choice. However, that does not negate the massive health benefits of LSS.

Aerobic base building definitely is a game changer in both performance and health, but as you stated you feel there is nothing in it for you, again choices. I can say though that I have trained and operated with some very strong individuals who got gassed quickly when expected to operate in an LSS fashion for any period of time and they were a LIABILITY not a help. Look at the world' s strongest men, they are strong, but are only good for short bursts of power over very short distances and most if not all would meet the WHO recommendations for activity.

 

[Dayz]

@Antti It sounds like you're ignoring the science because, as you conceded, you simply don't like cardio. ?

That's fair enough. But Pavel's 15 year old statement was really just a throwaway line, a bit of a colourful marketing statement, and is being taken out of context. His views have changed, hence, Strong Endurance.

Here's an accessible example:

Within the first 30 seconds he says, "the best, healthiest way to develop your cardio is through steady state aerobic activity, running in particular". He then explains basically MAF running. And later, explains how the mitochondria benefits from this aerobic actively benefit your strength training and allow you to replenish your strength and power. This is in line with the science.

There's a vast scientific literature showing that having a developed aerobic system allows us to survive better and live a longer life, and, importantly, to better absorb and recover from our strength training.

That's why so many StrongFirst practitioners/articles recommend MAF as a way to improve S&S, A+A, and Q&D practice on off days. Strong Endurance, all of Al Ciampas work, and the recent Nocavaine article are just a few examples.

Re the WHO guidelines, all they do is merely recommend minimum standards for not dying.... they're not about improving performance, let alone oriented to optimal performance, in short, strength, endurance or otherwise.

That said, they still don't align with what you're saying at all, lol. They support Pavel's actual view about the importance of steady state aerobic training. Copy posted from the actual guidelines:

"1. Adults aged 18–64 should do at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity throughout the week or do at least 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity throughout the week or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity.
2. Aerobic activity should be performed in bouts of at least 10 minutes duration.
3. For additional health benefits, adults should increase their moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity to 300 minutes per week, or engage in 150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity per week, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity.
4. Muscle-strengthening activities should be done involving major muscle groups on 2 or more days per week"

 

[offwidth]

It's something I often ponder too.....the difference between the low intensity heart rates.....

If it is considered that zone 2, maf number, talk test, easy is governed by time spent doing it and that is both for health and performance markers, then what about zone 1 stuff, lower intensity, walking, gentle but with hr above resting rate, where does that fall?

So 2 or 3 sessions of zone 2 for 45 minutes v 7 or 8 hours of low intensity movement everyday.

If a person is mostly inactive other than a couple of aerobic sessions a week surely that can't be as healthy as a very active person moving all day everyday with a low heart rate?

The must do aerobic exercise is a proxy for the loss of activity in modern lifestyles, maybe?

Generally, that is outside of sport or performance considerations.

If limited zone 2 is a good buffer to strength training then loads of unlimited zone 1 activity could be better....or not make any difference?

Z1 or ZR (depending upon which scale you are using)(Less than 55% HRMax): I spend some amount of time there as ‘recovery’ from harder efforts.
(Endorsed and explained by the folks over at Uphill Athlete, so that’s mostly all I need in way of justification…)

 

[LarryB]

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?

I for one believe in LED running but a lit of articles and research has been coming out lately saying that interval/HIIT training is actually more effective in increasing VO2 max (and i think lactic threshold, could be wrong). But overall they’re basically the same for general conditioning, plus HIIT is more tome efficient and more effective at increasing VO2 max and overuse injury is more prevalent in distance runners. As in with all things the answer probably somewhere in the middle and we should be doing all of it.

 

[Dayz]

I for one believe in LED running but a lit of articles and research has been coming out lately saying that interval/HIIT training is actually more effective in increasing VO2 max (and i think lactic threshold, could be wrong).

For the short duration of most studies, yes, because HIIT is essentially a peaking plan. You push it even higher and much more sustainably if you peak on top of a broad case.

 

[LarryB]

For the short duration of most studies, yes, because HIIT is essentially a peaking plan. You push it even higher and much more sustainably if you peak on top of a broad case.

I don’t disagree, i had just read an article and found it interesting. You don’t have to convince me, I’m going for a 17 miler this weekend.

 

[Boris Bachmann]

I can’t speak for @Ryan T but no amount of swinging and snatching in the world is going to build a base to prepare one to climb stuff like this…
View attachment 14349

This really is irrelevant. No amount of C2 rowing or treadmill will either - you know that it will require a lot of sport/task specific prep/base-building.

 

[Al Ciampa]

With a bowl of popcorn, I watch this back and forth. ?

 

[Boris Bachmann]

Example of 1, so take it for whatever you think it's worth. I have no interest in running or cycling. I do kettlebell and circuit work for cardio. Yes, I am aware of what KJ, Andrew Read, et al say - my left ventricle will thicken, etc.

While I'm sure this is true for most untrained people who only lift to get their 'cardio' in, the problem is that they are not competent technically or patient enough to make lifting a long slow distance activity. It's like a poor swimmer who's fat complaining that they don't get cardio benefits from swimming - OF COURSE THEY DON'T! Watch their workout closely and you'll see them spending more time resting on the wall than actual swimming. In fact, most people are simply not competent enough swimmers to swim for durations longer than 5 minutes (let alone 30+ minutes), period.

Here is a 2 hour continuous snatch set (16kg, 10rpm, switching hands every minute). Could I do this every day? No. Could I get several hours a week in this way? Absolutely.

 

[offwidth]

This really is irrelevant. No amount of C2 rowing or treadmill will either - you know that it will require a lot of sport/task specific prep/base-building.

Respectfully… not irrelevant at all when taken in context to what it was replying to. Did you read or understand that context?

The question was asked about cardio as a base for what. I merely provided an example of a specific ‘what’. And rucking, and running, and even rowing and other LED locomotive activities are a way (the preferred way) to help build that cardio base in a ‘dry-land’ setting, whereas KB swings and snatches are not.

But you are 100% correct that a lot of task specific prep is required. Some of it it highly specialized.

 

[BJJ Shawn]

Example of 1, so take it for whatever you think it's worth. I have no interest in running or cycling. I do kettlebell and circuit work for cardio. Yes, I am aware of what KJ, Andrew Read, et al say - my left ventricle will thicken, etc.

While I'm sure this is true for most untrained people who only lift to get their 'cardio' in, the problem is that they are not competent technically or patient enough to make lifting a long slow distance activity. It's like a poor swimmer who's fat complaining that they don't get cardio benefits from swimming - OF COURSE THEY DON'T! Watch their workout closely and you'll see them spending more time resting on the wall than actual swimming. In fact, most people are simply not competent enough swimmers to swim for durations longer than 5 minutes (let alone 30+ minutes), period.

Here is a 2 hour continuous snatch set (16kg, 10rpm, switching hands every minute). Could I do this every day? No. Could I get several hours a week in this way? Absolutely.

Holy crap, you snatched for 2 hours straight? Even at 10 RPM, that's a LONG time!

 

[offwidth]

Agreed! That is impressive.

 

[Boris Bachmann]

Respectfully… not irrelevant at all when taken in context to what it was replying to. Did you read or understand that context?

The question was asked about cardio as a base for what. I merely provided an example of a specific ‘what’. And rucking, and running, and even rowing and other LED locomotive activities are a way (the preferred way) to help build that cardio base in a ‘dry-land’ setting, whereas KB swings and snatches are not.

But you are 100% correct that a lot of task specific prep is required. Some of it it highly specialized.

I think I understood the context well enough but maybe not. Of course there's a continuum about what will establish a better base of GPP for climbing (or any specific activity) and while they may be generally agreed upon, where they are on the continuum (and whether they are on the continuum at all) are arguable - which is where I was going w. it, but maybe not clearly expressing.

 

[offwidth]

I think I understood the context well enough but maybe not. Of course there's a continuum about what will establish a better base of GPP for climbing (or any specific activity) and while they may be generally agreed upon, where they are on the continuum (and whether they are on the continuum at all) are arguable - which is where I was going w. it, but maybe not clearly expressing.

Understood…
And agreed about activities being on a continuum (or not as may be the case)