Kettlebell Kettlebell Training and Aerobic Capacity: My Case

[Antti]

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.



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.




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.

@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"

My personal preferences must influence my views, yes.

I don't think the WHO recommendations are as pitiful as you seem to see them.

Sure, more is better health/longevity wise, but the effects diminish as we pile on more hours. Like we discussed with @Ryan T , health and longevity is also a multifaceted issue. Is an hour of aerobic exercise better than an hour of sleep? Better than an hour spent with family? Better than an hour of shopping and cooking? Better than an hour of meditation? Better than an hour of strength training? Etc. It does not exist in a vacuum.

Even so, personally, I don't see the need for extra aerobic exercise if work, chores and strength training already give me what the peer reviewed science tells me. Like I said, I easily get more than double the WHO guidelines just from training. Other activities on top of that. How would more aerobic training enhance my health and longevity, considering that time spent in it is always an opportunity cost, and there are many, many variables to invest in for health and longevity?

 

[marvinthemartian]

Are you sure?

I think I remember plenty of the old kettlebell training talk speak fondly of the swinging and snatching taking care of all the conditioning one needs and often being superior compared to other modalities.

Yes. Not all KB info comes from Pavel even if it refers to him and of course KB swings and snatches can be enough "conditioning".

I am a couch potato and even S&S has had a good enough training effect so that helping at my grandparents farm, helping someone move or running up a staircase has become trivial. So yeah for that. I still would need to do more dedicated cardio training to "get in shape"

 

[Antti]

Yes. Not all KB info comes from Pavel even if it refers to him and of course KB swings and snatches can be enough "conditioning".

I am a couch potato and even S&S has had a good enough training effect so that helping at my grandparents farm, helping someone move or running up a staircase has become trivial. So yeah for that. I still would need to do more dedicated cardio training to "get in shape"

Like previously mentioned in this thread, there is no "in shape".

I could perfectly well say that I need to improve my total to 2000lbs to get in shape.

It is always specific.

The general needs for health and longevity are a different case. Those don't need a lot typically. Of course, things like say four hours of exercise a week to fulfill the WHO recommendations, what I don't see as a lot, can be a lot for the vast majority of people.

 

[Pete L]

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

What about Nando Parrado who trekked to safety after the Uruguayan rugby team air crash in the Andes in 1972?
As a sea level based rugby team I imagine he didn't have SPP for mountain climbing just a good GPP base, which swinging provides.

 

[Jalvarado]

The human state .. let’s find the most efficient workout that “hacks” time, HIIT is the hack isn’t it? Unfortunately the way towards a better aerobic system is through different zones but foundational base lives in zone 2 and this isn’t new data and it takes time. Whether you have that time to do it or not is beyond the point. After the industrial rev. Things changed the scenario of the working man with a family no longer having time to reap benefits of movement in different zones throughout the day. Look at us biologically the same as the hunter gatherer. They ran they jogged and they walked. They moved they squared they carried they hinged etc. every day. They also sat a lot. We need it all and at all times IMO.

 

[Steve Freides]

The human state .. let’s find the most efficient workout that “hacks” time, HIIT is the hack isn’t it? Unfortunately the way towards a better aerobic system is through different zones but foundational base lives in zone 2 and this isn’t new data and it takes time.

On the evidence I’m aware of, you’ve oversimplified. Perhaps “the most efficient workout” for the aerobic system (if you’ll forgive me borrowing your turn of a phrase and using it differently) lies in Zone 2, but other ways yield positive outcomes as well, albeit at the cost of more time spent if you train below Zone 2.

I think @Antti is onto something: there is no “one true way” to be had here.

Speaking as someone with no desire to climb mountains, I’m content with a focus on strength training, plus a small amount of strength-endurance training and a moderate amount of walking.

One can be “an inch wide and a mile deep” only at a limited number of things, and if one has to choose only a single method between strength training and aerobic training, my personal and professional experience has led me to conclude that strength training is the better choice for most people and situations.

But it’s great we don’t have to choose.

-S-

 

[Ryan T]

I think everyone's perspective on the matter has been a great learning experience, hopefully for everyone to get to know themselves better and think through their own ideas on the matter. There are two pretty universal points that we can all agree on.

1. Human nature is tend to seek out validation for what we want, whether it's actually a well-rounded view or not.
2. Good enough is better than best for the vast majority of us. When it comes to training for long term health and wellness, all demands and the attributes developed must align with our goals and requirements.
3. The fact that this discussion is had proves that we’re a light to the greater population of the sick, disease of lifestyle, Western world.
4. Because of points 1-3 there is no cause for derision.

Good discussion

 

[Jalvarado]

On the evidence I’m aware of, you’ve oversimplified. Perhaps “the most efficient workout” for the aerobic system (if you’ll forgive me borrowing your turn of a phrase and using it differently) lies in Zone 2, but other ways yield positive outcomes as well, albeit at the cost of more time spent if you train below Zone 2.

I think @Antti is onto something: there is no “one true way” to be had here.

Speaking as someone with no desire to climb mountains, I’m content with a focus on strength training, plus a small amount of strength-endurance training and a moderate amount of walking.

One can be “an inch wide and a mile deep” only at a limited number of things, and if one has to choose only a single method between strength training and aerobic training, my personal and professional experience has led me to conclude that strength training is the better choice for most people and situations.

But it’s great we don’t have to choose.

-S-

Yes what I meant and I guess it came off confusing was that many people try to find the most efficient method to train and love to hear there is a faster and less time consuming way. 10 mins of jump rope = 30 mins of jogging, 5 mins. Of HIIT is better than 40 mins. Of steady state. Forgive the exaggerations but the internet is flooded with those types of comparisons. But there is value in every heart rate zone of training. Zone 2 training has been highly studied for its benefits obviously but usually done up to 90 mins.

 

[Jalvarado]

I think everyone's perspective on the matter has been a great learning experience, hopefully for everyone to get to know themselves better and think through their own ideas on the matter. There are two pretty universal points that we can all agree on.

1. Human nature is tend to seek out validation for what we want, whether it's actually a well-rounded view or not.
2. Good enough is better than best for the vast majority of us. When it comes to training for long term health and wellness, all demands and the attributes developed must align with our goals and requirements.
3. The fact that this discussion is had proves that we’re a light to the greater population of the sick, disease of lifestyle, Western world.
4. Because of points 1-3 there is no cause for derision.

Good discussion

I think this is perfect. We all on this board are in the pursuit of better things for our health. Strength, aerobic etc. this also can lead us into a black hole or even a paradox of options where we are constantly searching for deeper answers to what we should do. Tracking hrv, heart rate zones etc. when we train, science in training or longevity. It’s all good but then you realize consistent movement, something for the aerobic system and something for strength is probably all you need to be healthy yet more is needed if you are venturing into a challenge or competition. Either way it’s all healthy.

 

[ali]

@Boris Bachmann 's graph.....it would have been interesting if Boris asked if anyone could determine the activity!! An hour + in zone 3.....looks like a tempo run, steady state if you smooth out the curves.
Supposing Boris were to use a 12kg bell and snatch so that it was almost entirely zone 2.....?
Getting into devilish details but a feature of zone 2 aerobic work is capillary density.
So does the activity matter?
One hour run v one hour snatch v one hour row v cycle v one arm press.....easy work is easy work surely?
So if running for one hour builds efficiency and aerobic adaptations specific to running and snatching in the same hr zone, specific adaptation to snatch but aerobic adaptation are the same, or different?
I get they would be different doing heavier swings and snatches in interval format but if hr was a steady duration and work output the same?
Either way I run and snatch...?

 

[Ryan T]

@Boris Bachmann 's graph.....it would have been interesting if Boris asked if anyone could determine the activity!! An hour + in zone 3.....looks like a tempo run, steady state if you smooth out the curves.
Supposing Boris were to use a 12kg bell and snatch so that it was almost entirely zone 2.....?
Getting into devilish details but a feature of zone 2 aerobic work is capillary density.
So does the activity matter?
One hour run v one hour snatch v one hour row v cycle v one arm press.....easy work is easy work surely?
So if running for one hour builds efficiency and aerobic adaptations specific to running and snatching in the same hr zone, specific adaptation to snatch but aerobic adaptation are the same, or different?
I get they would be different doing heavier swings and snatches in interval format but if hr was a steady duration and work output the same?
Either way I run and snatch...?

Love the response here.

I have no studies to quote on this statement, however given efficient, running gate and technique, you are also likely to build more bone density than snatching alone which would be advantageous as you age. The human body develops from infancy to adulthood to move via locomotion in reciprocal patterns, which is partly why building reflexive strength seems to tie together movement quality and the strength you build under laid. That's said running/jogging/whatever needs to be in balance itself. Dosing across activities is key, however you almost can't walk enough.

Pursuing activity that aligns with your biology conveys benefits of it's own.

 

[Antti]

@Boris Bachmann 's graph.....it would have been interesting if Boris asked if anyone could determine the activity!! An hour + in zone 3.....looks like a tempo run, steady state if you smooth out the curves.
Supposing Boris were to use a 12kg bell and snatch so that it was almost entirely zone 2.....?
Getting into devilish details but a feature of zone 2 aerobic work is capillary density.
So does the activity matter?
One hour run v one hour snatch v one hour row v cycle v one arm press.....easy work is easy work surely?
So if running for one hour builds efficiency and aerobic adaptations specific to running and snatching in the same hr zone, specific adaptation to snatch but aerobic adaptation are the same, or different?
I get they would be different doing heavier swings and snatches in interval format but if hr was a steady duration and work output the same?
Either way I run and snatch...?

I don't know how the hurt and lungs can differentiate.

I'm sure there are some muscle specific adaptations, not to mention tendons etc and movement efficiency development.

But for health and longevity? I would look at the hurt and lungs.

 

[DrFierce]

A lot of the newer research on the benefits of zone 2 (think MAF zone) centers on mitochondrial and metabolic health. If you want a deep dive on this, I found this podcast very interesting. #85 - Iñigo San Millán, Ph.D.: Mitochondria, exercise, and metabolic health - Peter Attia

 

[ali]

https://bit.ly/3wyejPK

An overview of known knowns and questions remaining....a really good read.

 

[Boris Bachmann]

@Boris Bachmann 's graph.....it would have been interesting if Boris asked if anyone could determine the activity!! An hour + in zone 3.....looks like a tempo run, steady state if you smooth out the curves.
Supposing Boris were to use a 12kg bell and snatch so that it was almost entirely zone 2.....?

Thank you. I've experimented w. pace and weight and can stay in pretty specific zones - zone 2 is pretty slow and boring if you're standing in one place for an hour+ though.

Getting into devilish details but a feature of zone 2 aerobic work is capillary density.
So does the activity matter?
One hour run v one hour snatch v one hour row v cycle v one arm press.....easy work is easy work surely?
So if running for one hour builds efficiency and aerobic adaptations specific to running and snatching in the same hr zone, specific adaptation to snatch but aerobic adaptation are the same, or different?
I get they would be different doing heavier swings and snatches in interval format but if hr was a steady duration and work output the same?
Either way I run and snatch...?

I've argued w. people on this. I think the argument that the adaptations somehow "aren't as good" is crap. Hips, grip, shoulder girdle are getting a hell of a workout. One arm being overhead a lot no doubt elevates HR. Saying it's produced "android work capacity" is a bit much but high rep snatches and circuit like work is doing the job. How to "prove" that to people, I don't know.

 

[ali]

zone 2 is pretty slow and boring if you're standing in one place for an hour+ though.

Scenery matters ?

Could the deal breaker here be just that....focus, motivation, psychological input?

If base building is time dependent, perhaps that easy pace aerobic prepares the mindset required to endure long events. The physiological components can be gained from shorter intensity and lots of movement/activity generally.

It's that Berra quote about baseball....

It's 90% mental and the other half is physical.

 

[Boris Bachmann]

Scenery matters ?

Could the deal breaker here be just that....focus, motivation, psychological input?

Could be. I think that (like swimming and C2 rowing) repetitive overuse injuries are probably something that you could run into more easily with kettlebell work than running or cycling in the great outdoors. Good technique and adding variation where you can to the training would go a long way towards preventing that though.

I used to swim competitively, so I tolerate boredom pretty well.

 

[ali]

Zone 2 snatch for 1 hour v zone 2 swim for 1 hour?
Not that I could do either for 1 hour but I'd go for the dry option!!

Interesting comparison because peeps would say there are great health benefits gained from a one hour swim. And no doubt that's true but v snatching? The addition of load and gravity? No weight bearing in swimming but great aerobic adaptation....so load, gravitational force and aerobic adaptation in snatching?

Of course, different exercises but in terms of aerobic capacity I struggle to differentiate between weighted, strength exercise where the load enables a steady heart rate for an extended period compared to unloaded aerobic steady state for the same time and heart rate....if anything strength aerobics is of greater overall benefit....for a one stop shop that is.

 

[Cearball]

I did VWC years ago.

If I remember right it was 45mins of snatches.

Even more boring than running but it did allow me to keep my running fitness for 6 months

 

[barrak]

My PT prescribed a Conconi test for me which revealed some interesting data points that may interest some readers. It was done on a treadmill, with each speed increment lasting 60 seconds. Readings were recorded off a Polar H10 chest strap monitor.

Thanks to the kettlebell programs I've been doing over the past 4 years, I've maintained my max HR at 172, with a decent anaerobic/lactate threshold at 155 (read at the deflection point in the curve). From this data, my VO2max is very decent for my age group; 40-42 at age 56. (see calculation below the graph)

However, notice the slow speeds and how quickly my HR rises at the start of the test. From what I read online: Aerobic Threshold Pace = 70% of VO2max Pace (7.2 miles/hr) = 5 miles/hr. My PT is not convinced this estimate applies in my case and believes my aerobic threshold is much lower. I'm under strict orders from him to limit my runs to sub 125 HR for several weeks to start building my aerobic capacity.

This is a very humbling prescription. I tried it yesterday for an hour and had to repeatedly slow down to a walk to stay within the target 110-124 HR. My previous "easy" runs, which I started 3 weeks ago, have been in the 125 - 140 HR range.

I'm bringing this all up for the benefit of others like me who neglected/are neglecting training their entire heart rate zone ranges.

I'm also open to suggestions and corrections if I'm grossly misinterpreting my data.

View attachment 14188

Estimating VO2max using a measured (not estimated) maxHR :
1. Pick a running speed in miles/hour (S) at a 90%+ of maxHR (P). In my case, I chose S = 7.2 at P = 100% = 1
2. Convert speed to meters/minute ==> 26.8 x S
3. Work Vo2 = 26.8 x S x 0.2 + 3.5
4. Vo2max = Work Vo2 / P = ( 26.8 x 7.2 x 0.2 + 3.5 ) / 1 = 42

Reference: https://www.ncsf.org/pdf/ceu/relationship_between_percent_hr_max_and_percent_vo2_max.pdf

Here is an update from today's test after two months of MAF running.

I expected some improvement in the sub 130 HR range where all my running have been restricted to. Much surprised by the larger improvements at the higher ranges!!