all posts post new thread

Kettlebell My S&S Swing and heartrate

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Look folks, to avoid putting words into each other's mouths, I'll make my position clear: I was a reasonably-fit 51 year old with about a year and a half of KB training behind me when S&S came out. I picked up a 24, set my GymBoss to beep every 30 seconds for 5 minutes and set off. Bam, done. Did the GetUps. Bam, done. Couple days later I picked up the 28. A few sessions later, the 32. After a couple extra sessions with the 32 to make sure I could attest to them all having been to face level - Bam, done. I think the whole thing took me 4-5 weeks and not once did I ever consider the musings of a chiropractor who writes for marathoners to be in any way relevant. I still don't.

We have grown-a#@ men who have been on this program for A YEAR and still aren't even close to reaching the Simple goal. That's pathetic enough. Now we want to slow even that glacial progress by convincing them that responsible training requires them to use 180-Age as a max heart rate which at best wildly over-states the importance of maximal aerobic fitness in an organization not called "AerobicsFirst" and at worst causes a completely unjustified fear of lactic acid production as if lactic acid is some foreign invader against which we have no defense. We've fallen into a huge case of the fallacy of the false alternative: one must either keep HR at Maffetone's 180-Age or careen wildly into Russian XC Skier levels of chronic intensity in an lactic acid soaked all-out pursuit of Olympic Gold that gives me the best chance of keeping my family outta the Gulag.
 
I haven't followed this thread in detail, but I will chime in that I know that formula of 180-age is far from universally accepted. If you poke around on the Internet, you'll find plenty of alternative formulas, including, if memory serves, one that says you should subtract only half your age from 180.

I know I keep mentioning the same book over and over, but "Running Formula" takes a different approach - it uses charts, based on recent race performances, to determine training paces. No heart rate numbers, just different running paces. If we tried to do something similar here, it might be based on an all-out session, and the chart would give you different sets, reps, rests, volume, etc., based on your all-out sessions numbers, all this to let you target a particular energy system.

The Running Formula approach does not, btw, include a hard and fast training template, but rather outlines which running pace you would choose when you want to train in a particular zone. Other resources are included to help you map out actual training days, weeks, and cycles.

-S-
 
@Bill Been
S&S is designed to be a park bench program, meaning it should be repeatable every day. By pushing it to the edge on every workout you made it into a bus bench program. If you like it that way more it's totally up to you, but that's not the way how Pavel imagined it.
All the stuff about Maffetone, HR etc. is just to keep it repeatable from day to day without plateauing early or going into overtraining/injury.

To make it clear: If you want to use S&S all year round on a daily basis you'd be advised to use a HR monitor or the talk test. Yes progress will be very slow, but it's progress nonetheless - It's about the journey.
If you are between programs and have like 6-8 weeks without anything planned there's no reason why you couln't approach it like Bill (hard HIIT style) and really push it - It's all about fast results and reaching the goal here.
 
This is just too long and hodgepodge to detail, so the bullets are:

- your relative state of health trumps the rest of this list
- S&S was not designed to be used with HR training, but you can
- "180-your age, adjusted for health" is a formula that "tends" to apply to many individuals. It is a start point for assessment, not a "be all, end all" guideline.
- heart rate guided training, when applied to swings, does not use "your" heaviest bell, and requires a lot more volume than is being discussed here
- it is far more important to learn your body's sensations as associated with particular heart rates, and how they can affect HR, than it is to use HR by itself
- Bill, many of us here know that you believe applying aerobic function training to swings is "dumb". You do not have to comment, or read these threads.
- as I mentioned, scientific research in this field is particularly lacking
- my recommendations are guided primarily by anecdotal evidence, that itself is interpreted through a "macrofilter" of scientific papers. Hardly controlled, but very suggestive.
- I am much more interested in practical solutions than scientific inquiry
- it is important that we have individuals around who request peer reviewed evidence, holding the forum to a higher standard
- there is almost no debate left (in my mind): the bigger your aerobic tank then,
1) the better your "potential" to perform will be;
2) the better your overall health will be;
3) the better your anaerobic function will be;
4) (related to #2 above) the better you will deal with stress, the more stress you will be able to deal with at once, the better your mental disposition will be, and the better a citizen, family member, and professional you will be.

The only way to "maximize" the above is lots of LSD work, peppered with strength and power intervals; nutrition also plays an intensive role. You don't "need" to maximize any of this but I refer you to bullet #1 for further guidance.

*Note, I am not prepared to defend any of this with science... you're all adults, draw your own conclusions.
 
@Bill Been
S&S is designed to be a park bench program, meaning it should be repeatable every day. By pushing it to the edge on every workout you made it into a bus bench program. If you like it that way more it's totally up to you, but that's not the way how Pavel imagined it.
All the stuff about Maffetone, HR etc. is just to keep it repeatable from day to day without plateauing early or going into overtraining/injury.

To make it clear: If you want to use S&S all year round on a daily basis you'd be advised to use a HR monitor or the talk test. Yes progress will be very slow, but it's progress nonetheless - It's about the journey.
If you are between programs and have like 6-8 weeks without anything planned there's no reason why you couln't approach it like Bill (hard HIIT style) and really push it - It's all about fast results and reaching the goal here.

That's the whole point, KB Pachyderm. It's wasn't hard at all -certainly not "pushing it to the edge" - and I can't imagine dinking around with it for a year and thinking that slowness somehow confers some greater impact or effectiveness on it. It's actually not about the journey. It's about creating a stress sufficient to disrupt homeostasis so that adaptation may occur.

All your points about Pavel's intent with S&S are noted, but note also that Pavel never said "boo" about Maffetone heart rates. I dare say the "talk test" is quite a large HR leap up from 180-Age. All this talk about "staying aerobic" led to somebody laying Maffetone's ultra long distance running stencil over a heavy, explosive, ballistic weight training move and spray painting away. I think (and Al is tired of me saying it, apparently) that is wrong as a football bat.

And if we had one tenth the actual number of cases of "overtraining" as we have of worries about overtraining, I'd be surprised.
 
Maffetone for me is 129. HR topped at 140. I let it drop to about 110 before the next set. Felt OK to me. I didn't have anyone to talk with so the talk test would have been a little weird - someone might come by and think I was talking to a kettlebell.
 
Bill,

I really don't feel that a daily (relatively) easy practice is hurting my strength development. All we are doing is lengthening the rest periods a bit. Might be missing out on some hypertrophy but frankly I'll swap that for feeling full of beans every morning. That and my only injury in 18 months was a minor elbow ding from getting lazy on a swing - a year and a half averaging 4-5 sessions a week, no time lost to training through injury and I am stronger than I ever was (reflects past weakness more than great current strength).

It works for me, and for me it was about the journey - probably because I had further to go.
 
Bill,

So there is no misunderstanding... what I tire of is you interjecting in an otherwise helpful and intellectual thread without progressing the discussion in the least. It disrupts the flow and is uncalled for... no one is arguing one protocol over another, but simply trying to learn how to better use a chosen protocol.

This is, off the top of my head, at least the third time you have done this: your initial post is a short sound byte somewhat relevant to the discussion, but actually a set up. When no one seems to bite, you, once again, describe your position for us, throw your hands up in an infantile gesture, and proceed to attack the topic of the discussion. It's getting old, and it's troll-ish. I invite you to discuss any naysayer opinion that you might have, but you might do so when it is indicated, not just at some random moment when you're bored at the office. Again, there is no debate here; that is, until you created one.

And so I don't have to sink to this level again, let me ask: what is your experience that allows you to speak with such righteousness? From the limited posts that I have followed here, you seem to be intelligent, well read, and trained both yourself and teenage son. You have cited the typical textbook HIIT research, critically thought it out, and applied it to yourself and your son, with, I assume, fantastic results, to date. That you found what works for you is the most important aspect here, and we are all behind you on that front. I more than welcome naysayers, and challenges to opinions and interpretations, but again, your methods do not progress the discussion.

That you pop up on a variety of threads discussing an alternative to your approach and call it "dumb", then apologize for it, then subsequently display the same attitude toward others indicates that you, sir, are a troll, and just looking for a pissing match. Some of us here are both academically and professionally prepared in this subject... training not hundreds of individuals, but thousands; are conducting research of our own, and are seeking to further the efficacy, safety, and positive health attributes of this and other training protocols. Take note: this is not a d*^k measuring contest, nor a call to authority; it is a matter of, "we have heard your anecdote, and are giving a little more thought to an n=2 trial, with a few favorable and purposefully selected papers in support".

Be part of the discussion, or pass these threads by.
 
What qualifies as staying aerobic with these swings? If you're swinging a 28Kg kettlebell then, if one's including shifts in body mass, your power output is somewhere in the 350W range (This is a rough guesstimate… My kingdom for a force plate). If you're staying completely aerobic with that kind of power output, Then you're in pretty rare company.
With the 28kg, I can go about two minutes before my heart rate hits 140…my theoretical aerobic HR limit. I assure you it goes north of that if I keep going. Just because I didn't get to 170 doesn't mean wasn't anaerobic.

I get that there's more than one way to skin a cat. I just have no idea how to skin a cat, so probably shouldn't strike out on my own
 
Last edited:
I don't really get where you're aiming with your post, but if you're able to swing a 28 hardstyle (max explosiveness) for 2 minutes nonstop without going over 140bpm you sure as hell stay aerobic and need to really increase the weight.
 
This thread certainly shows knowledge and passion about sharing that knowledge.

I know very little about all this stuff. I'm just the new guy wanting to swing a kettlebell, lose some weight, have better sex, and live a little longer.

After reading all of the posts so far in this thread, these are my conclusions;

There are no absolutes because every single one of us is different.

Every different method is a guideline.

Find the guideline that works best for YOU, and run with it. If you want, you can share it with someone else who may benefit.

After doing this for awhile even I might have an opinion!

And correction; there is one absolute: the kettlebell

So on that happy note I'm going to take a couple of sons and a couple of kettlebells on a cardio walk.

And while I'm gone, y'all PLAY NICE!
 
How 'bout this: let's all stop allowing people to develop the impression that glycolysis causes lactic acid and lactic acid necessarily damages myocardial mitochondria, then I'll stop bringing to people's attention that it doesn't.

When we start talking about damaging heart muscle people rightly take that seriously. They shouldn't be encouraged to believe these very short duration excursions into very high heart rates are compromising their health. If a guy makes a conscious decision to really plus up his aerobic capacity, I'm all for him, cheering all the way. If the same guy decided he had to do that because he got the impression his bi-weekly HIIT intervals are damaging his heart, that's a different thing.

Final thought: SFGs routinely run group classes organized into circuits. Such circuits are often worked 45/15 for 4 or 5 rounds of 4 or 5 movements, an approach that will obviously lead to significant lactic acid production and a not-inconsiderable degree of build up. If that approach endangers health the impact would be quite widespread. This is all so jarring exactly because it's so at odds with what everybody actually does yet it's being presented as the safe, responsible, healthy option.
 
The book says:

"Stay with whatever weight you are using for a while. Focus on technique in both exercises, and on power in the swing. Gradually reduce the rest periods— but without undue pressure. S&S is an “easy strength” and “easy endurance” program.

Eventually you will reach the point where the work-to-rest ratio is 1:1, which means you will hammer out 100 swings in five minutes and ten get-ups in ten minutes. It is almost time to move up in weight. Almost.
"

The book encourages people to reduce their rest periods until they're doing the swings in 5 minutes, as long as technique and power are not sacrificed.

So why is there so much emphasis on this forum to remain as aerobic as possible and take reaaaaaally long rests?

How are we supposed to reconcile these two ideas?

Actually, this very same topic was discussed on this forum and the answer was: Train with long rests, taking as much time as you need, and occassionally "test" yourself to see if you can meet the time standards.

So maybe the book should be edited? Because the 2 paragraphs I quoted clearly state that we should be gradually reducing our rest periods during training.

I criticized this some months ago and got crucified here, because apparently the book is perfect and the fault is mine for not being aware of the science behind everything.

(or maybe the book IS right and we should be gradually compressing our rests periods until we hit 5 minutes, who the f*** knows)
 
It probably doesn't matter much. Swing a kettlebell for 100 times a day and do 10 get-ups and you will get stronger.

As a personal choice I try and do this aerobically most of the time as I know it guarantees it will feel like a recharge, all reps will be solid and I will feel great next day and ready to go again. As times go on the rests compress naturally - but I agree you won't reach 1:1 work to rest staying aerobic (or at least I wont). Every now and again I'll go nuts and test myself and wolf down a rare steak afterwards.

I got into working this way because I wanted to maintain or improve my ability to run 5-10k whilst getting stronger. I have been reading Phil Maffetone's work and it resonated as a good way to balance fitness and health. I recognise that trying to train endurance and strength at the same time is a compromise. I don't think strength gets compromised much though - but the sessions take longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lew
How 'bout this: let's all stop allowing people to develop the impression that glycolysis causes lactic acid and lactic acid necessarily damages myocardial mitochondria, then I'll stop bringing to people's attention that it doesn't.

When we start talking about damaging heart muscle people rightly take that seriously. They shouldn't be encouraged to believe these very short duration excursions into very high heart rates are compromising their health. If a guy makes a conscious decision to really plus up his aerobic capacity, I'm all for him, cheering all the way. If the same guy decided he had to do that because he got the impression his bi-weekly HIIT intervals are damaging his heart, that's a different thing.

It's a testament to your character that you responded appropriately... you're alright, Bill.

I agree with the notion that we should not be scaring folks away from higher intensity training. "Context" is the word of the day, and we all seem to be making blanket assertions. Some of us should not be doing any high intensity training; some of us can tolerate some; other can tolerate more; and others can tolerate a lot... that is, at this point, as we now speak. Things can radically change depending upon a lot of factors. One common scenario that we have seen since the popularization of HIIT, and its bastardization into "all out, all the time", is:
- untrained, or detrained individual begins HIIT
- in the several months that follow, said individual makes fantastic gains, both aerobic and anaerobic
- at some point, too frequent bouts of anaerobic movement collectively begin to turn the individual into a zombie
- as this "disease" progresses, energy plummets, sleep is regularly disturbed, cognitive function falters, health declines... the individual essentially walks around in trance all day, and only conjures up energy to "workout", because it says so in the program

In a less common scenario, we will see a high level athlete succumb to cardiac failure early, as reports began to emerge in the last decade. Now, both of these are rather extreme versions of what a lot of folks are currently doing, the latter more so than the former, but this observation led to investigation, which led to the academic discovery of high exposures to anaerobic by-products (high acidity, specifically) as being degrading to proteins and cells, and from a performance standpoint, mitochondria, specifically.

Along this course of investigation, we have also discovered that there is a tug of war of sorts between aerobic function and anaerobic function. If you hang back and develop your aerobic function, you will be able to tolerate a lot more stress, including a lot of anaerobic function and its by-products... you will be able to buffer a hell of a lot more acids than if you use anaerobic function (re: HITT training) to try and develop both at the time, as we have been duped into believing. For a shorter time, yes, this tactic will work, as I have described above, but in the long run, it will serve most better to tip the scales toward more aerobic training, and less anaerobic training. And guess how long most, if not all of the research studies looking at HITT training last for? Again, context weighs supreme.

A weekly dose of HITT will likely do most of us a lot of good, because of the many reasons that you have pointed out in your many posts. Some of us can do well on more oft dosing. Context, in case I have not mentioned this yet, makes all the difference. That said, I personally recommend building a huge-inated aerobic tank, and run that turbo-charger only when you need it, or, slightly prior to needing it (if you're prepping for an event, e.g.), as 1-3 sessions of glycolytic work on top of lot of aerobic work seems to work rather nicely. Again, context... if someone comes to see me for PT improvement, and they complain of anxiety/panic attacks, "on edge", unexplained injuries/pain, and eating a lot of carbs and crap, I am taking HIIT off the table until they can better buffer they're internal environment.

Final thought: SFGs routinely run group classes organized into circuits. Such circuits are often worked 45/15 for 4 or 5 rounds of 4 or 5 movements, an approach that will obviously lead to significant lactic acid production and a not-inconsiderable degree of build up. If that approach endangers health the impact would be quite widespread. This is all so jarring exactly because it's so at odds with what everybody actually does yet it's being presented as the safe, responsible, healthy option.

Let me create a somewhat hypothetical spectrum of HIIT:
- the all out run (insert choice of tool) for 20min, as fast as you can right out the gate
- the LSD jog/walk (or tool of choice) 15:00/mi pace: 60min

What's in between?
- all out for any work interval followed by a rest interval in any given ratio, and for any given duration

Less intense = more rest less work, less overall duration
More intense = less rest more work, more overall duration

Context. And this describes one session, what about a training block of 8 weeks... 16 weeks ... the annual plan? What's the overall intensity for the year? Context... in the case your point (and well taken) where is each individual? What is the attrition rate, if any? (who reports attrition to Facebook, after all?!?!) What is the success rate? I am not arguing, I am asking these questions, because we have to.

If an SFG is using a little too much intensity, to frequently, those individuals who are at that state of health who make them susceptible to the ill-effects of intense work will drop out; while others might thrive. It is why we can't nail down a blanket prescription for intensity dosing: its a moving target among a group of individuals... context. He/she is not wrong, or incorrectly applying our principles... it is simply the nature of group training + capitalism.

Related... lactate is a buffering system that the cell uses to remove acidity (hydrogen ions [H+]). Lactate is not the devil, and is a natural occurring substrate of metabolism. You have lactate in your blood at rest. When lactate accumulates to a high degree, it is indicative of excess H+, first in the cell, then the tissue, then systemically. High lactate levels are our marker for high H+... it is not damaging in and of itself. Lactate, however, is a weak acid, and will "leak"
out H+ that is bound to it if it lays around in the blood, as in, when it can't be cleared fast enough (too much high intensity work). So, while lactate isn't the issue, a high level of its presence both indicates low pH (high H+), and if not cleared, contributes to more H+.

Aerobic function, the actual process, clears a lot of H+ (read any biochem textbook). Aerobic work: slower, lower HR, more rest... contribute to better aerobic function... more mitochondria is formed throughout muscle tissue, and a higher buffer (the act of clearing H+) rate is achieved. LSD work achieves a lot of this, especially in the slow twitch fibers... "aerobic swings" achieve some of this, especially in the type IIx fibers, and, to a much smaller degree, in the purely fast twitch (type II) fibers.

Trying to do S&S to the time goal every time out is "brief" form of high intensity exercise. You will see both aerobic and anaerobic benefits at first, and maybe for a long while (it is only a 5min "dosing"); then you will see a lack of energy, and some version of the scenario above. High acidity levels will begin to degrade mitochondrial mass and function, decreasing buffering ability, all the while you generate more and more chronic acidity as you continue to train. You will essentially become, more and more dependent on anaerobic metabolism... an unhealthy thing to do. *Note, this is a poor example, as these sessions are only 5min long, but the point is clear... consider what the longer duration high intensity circuits are doing.

Now, if you spend a lot of time reinforcing your aerobic function, AND THEN, hit the accelerator, your superior aerobic function and buffering system will afford two things:
- aerobic function will cover a higher intensity of work... meaning, you will not need to tap into the turbocharger to fuel "higher" intensity work
- when the turbocharger does light up, it's by-products will be efficiently cleared form the blood, maintaining your performance and health

Then, get back to easier aerobic work for most of the year, alternated with shorter blocks of turbocharged work.

What qualifies as staying aerobic with these swings? If you're swinging a 28Kg kettlebell then, if one's including shifts in body mass, your power output is somewhere in the 350W range (This is a rough guesstimate… My kingdom for a force plate). If you're staying completely aerobic with that kind of power output, Then you're in pretty rare company.

Simon, a great question... see directly above. Each set of swings will require anaerobic supplement to your base energy system: aerobic metabolism. To what degree of supplementation required depends upon your current state of training and health. For some, they will remain anaerobic even into the rest periods... for others, they may only tap the turbocharger for a small portion of each set (more so in the latter part of the session, but that's another story).

Context.

Did I miss anything?
 
The book says:

"Stay with whatever weight you are using for a while. Focus on technique in both exercises, and on power in the swing. Gradually reduce the rest periods— but without undue pressure. S&S is an “easy strength” and “easy endurance” program.

Eventually you will reach the point where the work-to-rest ratio is 1:1, which means you will hammer out 100 swings in five minutes and ten get-ups in ten minutes. It is almost time to move up in weight. Almost.
"

The book encourages people to reduce their rest periods until they're doing the swings in 5 minutes, as long as technique and power are not sacrificed.

So why is there so much emphasis on this forum to remain as aerobic as possible and take reaaaaaally long rests?

How are we supposed to reconcile these two ideas?

Actually, this very same topic was discussed on this forum and the answer was: Train with long rests, taking as much time as you need, and occassionally "test" yourself to see if you can meet the time standards.

So maybe the book should be edited? Because the 2 paragraphs I quoted clearly state that we should be gradually reducing our rest periods during training.

I criticized this some months ago and got crucified here, because apparently the book is perfect and the fault is mine for not being aware of the science behind everything.

(or maybe the book IS right and we should be gradually compressing our rests periods until we hit 5 minutes, who the f*** knows)

Yes, P... this is an old hat with you. S&S is not gospel. As we learn more, we will update our thinking and report it. You may ignore it and continue to quote your "book", or you can progress. (Why am I starting to feel like this is a science v. religion debate?)

That said, that book still describes a very sound program.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom