all posts post new thread

Kettlebell Pavel's article - "The best all-around training method ever"

Dean

Level 5 Valued Member
Hi everyone

I have a question regarding Pavel's article titled "The best all-around training method ever" at:


In it he states that "According to other Swedish research, the particular loading pattern—brief periods of work and brief periods of rest—result in heart rate dynamics similar to moderate intensity steady state running: the gold standard for heart development."

Does anyone know what the particular research referred to is? I am in no way questioning what is being said - I am merely interested and would like to read the research itself.

Thanks
Dean
 
Google find this connection

The interval training method known as Fartlek training was invented by the Swedish coach Gösta Holmér in the 1930s
 
Fartlek training isn’t moderate intensity steady state though, it’s variable intervals at a high intensity.
Pavel’s article “brief periods of work and brief periods of rest” sounds like intervals to me however I am just speculating. I have no idea who he might be referring to.
 
Pavel’s article “brief periods of work and brief periods of rest” sounds like intervals to me however I am just speculating. I have no idea who he might be referring to.
I have run alot of fartlek and the intensity here is a great deal higher than when training this way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ege
Pavel’s article “brief periods of work and brief periods of rest” sounds like intervals to me however I am just speculating. I have no idea who he might be referring to.
Oh yeah, the work/ rest cycles are definitely similar to intervals, I was referring to the “heart rate similar to steady state running”.
 
I tried digging into this but all I found was a study by Kenneth Jay demonstrating that kettlebell swing intervals (30s work 60s rest, working up to 30s work 30s rest) over 20 minutes 3x a week over 8 weeks didn't change aerobic fitness levels compared to the control group.

I could swear that he used to have a study published about his Viking Warrior Conditioning protocol but I can't seem to find it anymore. And he doesn't seem to be a fan of that protocol anymore.
 
I tried digging into this but all I found was a study by Kenneth Jay demonstrating that kettlebell swing intervals (30s work 60s rest, working up to 30s work 30s rest) over 20 minutes 3x a week over 8 weeks didn't change aerobic fitness levels compared to the control group.

I could swear that he used to have a study published about his Viking Warrior Conditioning protocol but I can't seem to find it anymore. And he doesn't seem to be a fan of that protocol anymore.

Thanks for sharing the study. They did not find the one arm swing as an exercise to effectively work shoulders :) well I am sure they would have found side delt raises as an effective way to work shoulders.

Well to find your way with in this polluted scientific study work environment, requires someone to find trustable and reliable experienced people. And it is very difficult to do so. 10’s of millions of people are following people with artificially enhanced bodies. And we all live in a world that one of the pioneers of this world and culture was an enhanced bodybuilder which had positive impact to create awareness but resulted in a skewed way of looking at things even in the universities and the doctors.

Thanks for sharing, my not so polite comments are not to you. It is towards the scientific world to a large extend.

What you figure out with your own body and with coaching others is such a valuable information that, in any science study, an experienced coach should be in the crew not only as a go to “do this” type of PT but as a stakeholder.
 
I'm curious as to how this type of training (cardiovascular benefits) compares to the cardiovascular training described by Dr. Peter Attia, 45 minutes of zone 2 cardio 4 days a week and 1 day a week of VO2 max training. Is 2 days of C&J enough to elicit the same response to the cardiovascular system or should/could you add more C&J training days per week. Should/could you do this training everyday or near everyday similar to S&S, not pushing the envelope every session but listening to the autoregulation (some days dial it back, some days you hit PRs) of your body each individual session.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ege
I tried digging into this but all I found was a study by Kenneth Jay demonstrating that kettlebell swing intervals (30s work 60s rest, working up to 30s work 30s rest) over 20 minutes 3x a week over 8 weeks didn't change aerobic fitness levels compared to the control group.

I could swear that he used to have a study published about his Viking Warrior Conditioning protocol but I can't seem to find it anymore. And he doesn't seem to be a fan of that protocol anymore.
Some quotes from the study:

The training protocol did not significantly improve aerobic fitness or strength of the shoulders and trunk flexors.
...
The highly significant increase in back extensor strength, as opposed to no change in shoulder or trunk flexor strength, validates the specificity of the peak forces generated.
...
Our study is the first to demonstrate that ballistic cyclic training with high peak forces markedly lowers pain symptoms in both the neck/shoulder and low-back region. Thus, kettlebell training can be implemented at the workplace to reduce common musculoskeletal pain symptoms.
...
The session duration of 20 minutes (consisting of 5–10 minutes of warm-up followed by 10–15 minutes of kettlebell training) does not leave ample duration to stimulate significant cardiovascular adaptations.
...
In conclusion, our randomized controlled trial showed reductions of neck/shoulder and low-back pain as well as increased muscle strength of the trunk extensors in response to 8 weeks of ballistic kettlebell training. However, the training protocol did not significantly improve aerobic fitness or strength of the shoulders and trunk flexors.


I find the results as expected. I don't think it's surprising that your aerobic fitness levels won't improve by doing a kettlebell exercise for 10-15 minutes at a time, thrice a week. Your aerobic system has barely fired up in that time, especially with that intensity. It's also not surprising that kettlebell swinging for the aforementioned time hasn't got an effect on shoulder or trunk flexion strength. You are not doing any real shoulder movement nor trunk flexion when swinging.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious as to how this type of training (cardiovascular benefits) compares to the cardiovascular training described by Dr. Peter Attia, 45 minutes of zone 2 cardio 4 days a week and 1 day a week of VO2 max training. Is 2 days of C&J enough to elicit the same response to the cardiovascular system or should/could you add more C&J training days per week. Should/could you do this training everyday or near everyday similar to S&S, not pushing the envelope every session but listening to the autoregulation (some days dial it back, some days you hit PRs) of your body each individual session.
This is a very good question. I hear a lot from the scientists measuring mitochondrial impact of Zone 2 training but they seem to be not trying to look in to alternatives. Maybe because of their own exercise background. It should be an easy experiment for them.

But I don’t know literature at all in this field so some one could point a study….
 
Some quotes from the study:

The training protocol did not significantly improve aero- bic fitness or strength of the shoulders and trunk flexors.
...
The highly significant increase in back extensor strength, as opposed to no change in shoulder or trunk flexor strength, validates the specificity of the peak forces generated.
...
Our study is the first to demonstrate that ballistic cyclic training with high peak forces markedly lowers pain symptoms in both the neck/shoulder and low-back region. Thus, kettlebell training can be implemented at the workplace to reduce common musculoskeletal pain symptoms.
...
The session duration of 20 minutes (consisting of 5–10 minutes of warm-up followed by 10–15 minutes of kettlebell training) does not leave ample duration to stimulate significant cardiovascular adaptations.
...
In conclusion, our randomized controlled trial showed reductions of neck/shoulder and low-back pain as well as increased muscle strength of the trunk exten- sors in response to 8 weeks of ballistic kettlebell train- ing. However, the training protocol did not significantly improve aerobic fitness or strength of the shoulders and trunk flexors.
This is why I brush off this study.

Trunk flexors and shoulder strength is not improved….

How did they measure the trunk flexor strength and shoulder strength?

All exercise, including Yoga, will increase strength of some muscles. If you could not understand which of the shoulder muscles are working and how to measure their strength correctly then you did not think this study throughly as a scientist.

In this case, I have to believe in either of those things.
1) Kettlebell magically is turning around my shoulder joint defying physics central forces generated.

2) The magic is not in the central forces generated, but it is the stabilizers in the shoulder which work during a swing, are prone to development via induced tension and applied force. If this is the case, our stabilizers and rotator cuff so on so forth muscles are not indeed muscles. They are different type of organs that does not respond to stimulation.

Well when it comes to ab flexion … The same magic applies here as well. I will be amazed.

Honestly, if you want one thing from your abs it is to keep you stabilized in a sudden explosive way, same goes with your shoulder “strength”. I think a KB one arm swing, develops the most fundamental aspects of those muscles involved. They are meant to stabilize your body and joints.

And one more thing.

There are studies that find effectiveness of a 10 minute walk. You can divide your daily walking “pill” in to 10 minute blocks and get benefit.

Let’s put aside the swings for a moment.

I was sedentary for 47 years, and my first form of exercise (I now recall, it was not resistance bands) it was a 7 minute body workout.

I was overweight and was only able to do some kind of warm up for 7 minutes. (I was not able to perform the prescribed famous 7 min workout)

I was lazy, and inconsistent. I was starting and then not following up. The first thing that I have noticed was, you can improve things after a long sedentary life, with extremely low volume.

In my case, weekly 7 minutes warm up was enough to progress to my surprise. I was like starting every Monday, then giving up. A few Monday’s later, the warm up was no more a challenge. Because believe it or not, it created enough stimulus on everything in my body enough to show progress.

Today, if I drop my volume to 7 minutes warm up a week, I will regress in everything I do, and quite rapidly. Because my body got used to.

But I know again for a fact, every single warm up that I do (if I do) before my workout is a brick on the wall. It is not nothing. (S&S warm up routine gave me big time)

That is why I jumped in to the wagon of 20 minutes weekly resistance band strength training.

Again that 20 minutes a week was enough for strength and hypertrophy.

I can guarantee from experience that, weekly 3 times 10 minute warm ups alone, will improve everything about fitness of a sedentary person. Because it is much above what I have started with in the first place, and I don’t think I am the most genetically gifted athlete around.

This study was not able to detect the positive impact of 3 x 10 min warm ups a week. So they were not precise on anything.

15 minutes KB Swing magically not improving your cardiovascular system?

Here there are advanced trainees. They take walks of 10-15 minutes or half an hour. It is sth. If a study can not measure it, it is the studies fault. What makes KB swings so inferior to walking? The fact that my largest muscle work in an explosive way?
 
Last edited:
The study protocol is very different.
The 30 seconds work used in the study is glycolytic. Akin to a HIIT circuit.
Whereas the LCCJ protocol of 5 to 20 seconds of work with the objective of avoiding excessive glycolysis.
The short rounds of every 30 seconds is much closer to steady state work than the study's every 90 second protocol.
It's like comparing apples with watermelons.
 
This is a very good question. I hear a lot from the scientists measuring mitochondrial impact of Zone 2 training but they seem to be not trying to look in to alternatives. Maybe because of their own exercise background. It should be an easy experiment for them.

But I don’t know literature at all in this field so some one could point a study….
You should cast your net wide and far when it comes to mitochondrial health. Much of the assertion that zone 2 is needed for this is simply not backed up by science. Which is to say zone 2 absolutely DOES produce beneficial outcome, but not exclusively. Positive mitochondrial response and increased oxidative muscular capacity are signature responses to well-crafted interval training.

Len Kravitz University of New Mexico has a lot of publicly available research on all manner of interval training and adaptive response, that could point to theoretical (if not actual research outcome) answers to some of these questions.

That said, even the more casual approaches dig into higher % of estimated HR max.
 
This is why I brush off this study.

Trunk flexors and shoulder strength is not improved….

How did they measure the trunk flexor strength and shoulder strength?

All exercise, including Yoga, will increase strength of some muscles. If you could not understand which of the shoulder muscles are working and how to measure their strength correctly then you did not think this study throughly as a scientist.

In this case, I have to believe in either of those things.
1) Kettlebell magically is turning around my shoulder joint defying physics central forces generated.

2) The magic is not in the central forces generated, but it is the stabilizers in the shoulder which work during a swing, are prone to development via induced tension and applied force. If this is the case, our stabilizers and rotator cuff so on so forth muscles are not indeed muscles. They are different type of organs that does not respond to stimulation.

Well when it comes to ab flexion … The same magic applies here as well. I will be amazed.

Honestly, if you want one thing from your abs it is to keep you stabilized in a sudden explosive way, same goes with your shoulder “strength”. I think a KB one arm swing, develops the most fundamental aspects of those muscles involved. They are meant to stabilize your body and joints.
These are fine points. However, I'd like to think that while swings and yoga do improve shoulder stability, and maybe even strength in an untrained individual, I wouldn't go as far as saying that swings improve something like pressing or pulling strength, which I would consider very important aspects of shoulder strength. Same goes for trunk flexion; while I'd like to think that swings improve ones ability to brace and keep the trunk engaged, I don't see them improving one's hanging leg raise for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ege
These are fine points. However, I'd like to think that while swings and yoga do improve shoulder stability, and maybe even strength in an untrained individual, I wouldn't go as far as saying that swings improve something like pressing or pulling strength, which I would consider very important aspects of shoulder strength. Same goes for trunk flexion; while I'd like to think that swings improve ones ability to brace and keep the trunk engaged, I don't see them improving one's hanging leg raise for example.
I agree fully. Strength is quite specific. That is why a blanket “is not improving strength of shoulders” is far away from being a scientific definition to me.

If they train a certain pattern of any kind, they have to measure the strength of that pattern.

Otherwise one can train dips and conclude dips is not improving your strength. If they happen to measure the strength with a press move.

And IMHO, the strength required to stabilize the joints are more fundamental and Quality of life improver than the ones that “move” the joints. Because stability has a direct correlation with perceived health of the given joint.

You can be stronger guy around the block with pressing, you can have largest muscles without pressing, you can have healthy shoulders with out pressing, but if you have stability muscle issues in you shoulder, you will end up injured if you train and/or you will have some sort of life quality decrease even if you don’t exercise and get injured. Carrying bags will be tougher with that shoulder etc.

If the same study would have given a note, such as “KB one arm swings did not improve press strength in this short amount of time as expected, because it does not train the “push pattern” however, we saw this much or that much change in rotational stability or sth like that, or we did not see an improvement in rotary cuff etc” Then I would show all the respect to the study.

They did not write “which” strength they are referring to. I am not terrible with dips and push ups but absolutely terrible with presses. I am a very weak duckling in this forum, but among my sedentary friends of 50, they call me at midnight to help to carry around heavy things though my KB presses are really terrible. By the way, my shoulders does not look bad. I look much stronger than I am. That is maybe polluting to some extend my views. I know a muscle looking “stronger” does not mean it is “stronger” so when someone talks about body parts, I become a bit upset. My body parts are good :) good enough. But I am weak :))

Btw, I am just passionate about those topics because I am a new bee :) I know my tone is not calm down. I think soon or later I will learn to communicate with less emotion and with shorter paragraphs :)
 
You should cast your net wide and far when it comes to mitochondrial health. Much of the assertion that zone 2 is needed for this is simply not backed up by science. Which is to say zone 2 absolutely DOES produce beneficial outcome, but not exclusively. Positive mitochondrial response and increased oxidative muscular capacity are signature responses to well-crafted interval training.

Len Kravitz University of New Mexico has a lot of publicly available research on all manner of interval training and adaptive response, that could point to theoretical (if not actual research outcome) answers to some of these questions.

That said, even the more casual approaches dig into higher % of estimated HR max.
I am surprised, after hearing Zone 2 workout here in this forum, I found Peter Attia youtube channel. He made a podcast with a Phd, seemingly an expert, named Inigo San Milan, and they said interval training does not create mitochondria adaptation. They say you have to constantly be in Zone 2 not going up and down….

Well, I might find my self in a fight of different camps in this manner as well :))

Well, I might hold my horses on this topic. And happily add a walking routine in my exercise regime. I walk around quite a bit but need to up the volume a bit and allocate specific times to my self.

I am a total beginner in cardio, I am lucky :)) I will walk 30 minutes a few times a week and improve :) and maybe in the mean time, more will be resolved. I will be closely watching those threads.

There are also some high stakes in this “fights” as usual, people create businesses, careers, fame, and I am not referring to fake gurus. Honest people honestly invest a lot and they are emotionally attached. Sometimes the truth might lie in sth in between to honest and competent people.

Not trying to be a fan boy, but Pavel’s talks on cardio could be all I need …
 
Last edited:
I am surprised, after hearing Zone 2 workout here in this forum, I found Peter Attia youtube channel. He made a podcast with a Phd, seemingly an expert, named Inigo San Milan, and they said interval training does not create mitochondria adaptation. They say you have to constantly be in Zone 2 not going up and down….
Increased mitochondrial density (quantitative) and qualitative increase in capacity have been consistently observed as an outcome of HIIT for many years.

Of the range of adaptive responses, this is actually THE most closely associated with high intensity intervals (and is in fact part of the operant mechanism of Q&D). If any expert is suggesting otherwise, they’d need to not only cite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but also explain the research flaws in the previous studies.
I’ll leave it at that…
 
Back
Top Bottom