all posts post new thread

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

North Coast Miller said:
Absolutely.
Again, I’m not going to claim it is better etc than zone 2 in any way except the following:
- time efficient
- body comp

With the exception of about 12 weeks total over the last 3 years I’ve essentially used only HIIT 2-3 times per week. I’d say its comparable to 3or 4 x per week 40 minute runs in terms of basic aerobic fitness plus very good recovery from higher intensity effort. More than good enough for long term GPP and health.

Ideally one would do both LISS and HIIT 80/20. But if one is avoiding HIIT because of belief it is either ineffective for aerobic and mitochondrial health or possibly even harmful, one has been misinformed.
Click to expand...
How long are your HIIT sessions? That’s my main curiosity for the “All Around Training” program. Is only two of the C&J sessions enough to elicit the same respond as 80/20 training. Should you do more sessions and at longer durantions?
 
John K said:
They explain how they assessed shoulder strength in the methods section:


While something like this is far from "real world," it does help control a lot of the variables. When they say it does not improve strength, they are referring to this specifically, and are not making a blanket statement, which they state in the discussion here:


They are comparing pre and post intervention results, as that is what they assessed. They are not stating there was no improvements in military press as they did not look at that. They are not stating there were no improvements in anything else - only that there was no improvements in shoulder strength as assessed by the dynamometer. It is also important to note - which they do at the end for a close reading - that they specifically say "our study protocol." They are, again, explicitly not making a blanket statement.

Folks can argue whether or not a dynamometer has any bearing to real world strength. I'm not going to wade into that, just like I'm not going to argue that the swing improves shoulder strength.


I don't think this is actually the case, as you introduce a lot of variables as far as studying - such as - is the increase strength-specific or technique-specific or a blend. For most people in the real world it might not matter, but for a scientific study, it may be important to suss out the differences - and this is why a lot of times you see things like max iso holds or dynamometers, regardless of training method. They are assessing force output and whether it increased or not. And in the context of this particular study, that removes the need from instructing and assessing yet another movement. Folks can argue this too, but there is a reason behind the methodology.
Click to expand...
Sir, I can see that some of my criticism was not making justice to the study. However, this does not change my opinion about the quality of the study.

“However, the training protocol did not significantly improve aerobic fitness or strength of the shoulders and trunk flexors..”

They might have limited time and resources I can see that. But if it was a term project, and if I were assessing the team, I would have asked, what could you do differently to be able to measure the strength gains in the future. The way they put their conclusion forward is misleading.

When I read the conclusion, I understand that KB Swings don’t increase strength of the shoulder and trunk flexors as well as aerobic fitness.

IMHO, this is either a poorly designed study or a poorly stated conclusion.

if everyone who is generally a lot experienced than me in this forum agree with the study, about aerobic fitness and strength then I should change my definition of strength and aerobic fitness and which is okay, I am learning.
 
Last edited:
David Smit said:
Not new at all. Seiler and others have discussed and researched it for years. Norwegian xc skiers dominate using polarized training. Now the Norwegian triathletes - not new just more accessible with todays endless amount of social media. Remember Peter Attia charges each patient 120k for full services……
Click to expand...
People have train this Way for decades without called it polarized.
 
North Coast Miller said:
Absolutely.
Again, I’m not going to claim it is better etc than zone 2 in any way except the following:
- time efficient
- body comp

With the exception of about 12 weeks total over the last 3 years I’ve essentially used only HIIT 2-3 times per week. I’d say its comparable to 3or 4 x per week 40 minute runs in terms of basic aerobic fitness plus very good recovery from higher intensity effort. More than good enough for long term GPP and health.

Ideally one would do both LISS and HIIT 80/20. But if one is avoiding HIIT because of belief it is either ineffective for aerobic and mitochondrial health or possibly even harmful, one has been misinformed.
Click to expand...
I have talked to a danish researcher and he believe, that if you only do the High intensity stuff, and Cut the easy zone2 training, it will bring you 95% of the same results that the people doing polarized training.
 
Ladies and gentlemen,

Pavel was referring to pioneering research by Åstrand and later works by Christensen, Saltin, Essén, and some other Swedish researchers.

Attend Strong Endurance with Pavel the weekend of February 4-5:

Shop Professional Seminars, STRONG ENDURANCE™ by Pavel—in person or online—Miami, FL, USA—February 4-5, 2023 | StrongFirst

StrongFirst Professional Seminars, STRONG ENDURANCE™ by Pavel—in person or online—Miami, FL, USA—February 4-5, 2023 | SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR Pavel Tsatsouline IN PERSON LOCATION Body & Soul Miami 3183 SW 38th Court Miami, FL 33146 ONLINE Zoom Online Video Platform TIME
www.strongfirst.com

-S-
 
Ege said:
Sir, I can see that some of my criticism was not making justice to the study. However, this does not change my opinion about the quality of the study.

“However, the training protocol did not significantly improve aerobic fitness or strength of the shoulders and trunk flexors..”

They might have limited time and resources I can see that. But if it was a term project, and if I were assessing the team, I would have asked, what could you do differently to be able to measure the strength gains in the future. The way they put their conclusion forward is misleading.

When I read the conclusion, I understand that KB Swings don’t increase strength of the shoulder and trunk flexors as well as aerobic fitness.

IMHO, this is either a poorly designed study or a poorly stated conclusion.

if everyone who is generally a lot experienced than me in this forum agree with the study, about aerobic fitness and strength then I should change my definition of strength and aerobic fitness and which is okay, I am learning.
Click to expand...
Null results are still important in science, as they provide researchers information on what hasn’t worked and how they may change to see better results. Or, as you suggest, their means for assessing may be inadequate and the study can be repeated with different assessments to see if that was the flaw. Not all research works perfectly and hiding failures stymies scientific progress.

It is also important, when coming across a result that we disagree with, to reconsider our own biases as well as critique the study. Do we say the study must be wrong because of the result, or is there a flaw we can see that may have caused that result? Is there room to update our opinions to incorporate that study? If we simply say the result of a study isn’t what we think it should be and so they must be wrong, I’d suggest the problem is more us than the research. At that point, even finding research that supports our conclusions is just an exercise in confirming our bias; we must look at what the bulk of research says, not just cherry pick studies that support what we already “know.”
 
Tom Watson said:
How long are your HIIT sessions? That’s my main curiosity for the “All Around Training” program. Is only two of the C&J sessions enough to elicit the same respond as 80/20 training. Should you do more sessions and at longer durantions?
Click to expand...
With true HIIT, less is more. Training at home and not having precise estimates of VO2 max you’re training at, one is left simply going as hard/fast as possible. If you can continue for more than 30 seconds without a drop in rate or driving HR to at least 80% of your max, is time to find a tougher mode.

Movement speed is important. You cannot do a real HIIT session with resistance beyond a very superficial load/level. Moreover, you wouldn’t want to. Use resistance training for strength and power, intervals for aerobic capacity. Your intervals should not interfere or compete with strength training, at all.

My longest sessions are about 12 minutes not including warmup and cooldown. The shorter ones are just over 6. There doesn’t appear to be much benefit to more than 3x per week, diminishing returns. 3x is more effective than 2x though.

Kravitz has a lot of research demonstrating good effect at lower intensities, longer duration, but Tabata is the gold standard.
 
Last edited:
North Coast Miller said:
With true HIIT, less is more. Training at home and not having precise estimates of VO2 max you’re training at, one is left simply going as hard/fast as possible. If you can continue for more than 30 seconds without a drop in rate or driving HR to at least 80% of your max, is time to find a tougher mode.

Movement speed is important. You cannot do a real HIIT session with resistance beyond a very superficial load/level. Moreover, you wouldn’t want to. Use resistance training for strength and power, intervals for aerobic capacity. Your intervals should not interfere or compete with strength training, at all.

My longest sessions are about 12 minutes not including warmup and cooldown. The shorter ones are just over 6. There doesn’t appear to be much benefit to more than 3x per week, diminishing returns. 3x is more effective than 2x.

Kravitz has a lot of research demonstrating good effect at lower intensities, longer duration, but Tabata is the gold standard.
Click to expand...
Can you describe on of your sessions?
 
TedDK said:
I have talked to a danish researcher and he believe, that if you only do the High intensity stuff, and Cut the easy zone2 training, it will bring you 95% of the same results that the people doing polarized training.
Click to expand...
I more or less agree with this, depending on training volume.

There was a thread many moths ago where this was discussed at length. Zone 2 has a much, much higher level of potential adaptive response since its scalable, you can simply add more time. With HIIT you can only go so hard for so long and that is it.

For people who don’t or can’t run for 4 or more hours a week ( or more!), intervals, properly applied can do a good job.
 
North Coast Miller said:
I more or less agree with this, depending on training volume.

There was a thread many moths ago where this was discussed at length. Zone 2 has a much, much higher level of potential adaptive response since its scalable, you can simply add more time. With HIIT you can only go so hard for so long and that is it.

For people who don’t or can’t run for 4 or more hours a week ( or more!), intervals, properly applied can do a good job.
Click to expand...
The reaseacher is a High level cyklist in denmark and his comment was aimed at that.
Most of his training is a short warmup, then High intensity and then a short cooldown. This is done allmost Daily.
 
TedDK said:
Can you describe on of your sessions?
Click to expand...
3 minutes warmup with jump rope
20 seconds on - 3 beats per second
12 seconds rest, shuffling in place
Repeat 12 x.

Heart rate hits mid 160s by the third or fourth interval. My max HR is about 180 at a guess. Is better to reduce rest periods than to do more intervals. Anything from 8-15 or so.

I’ve worked up to this. When I started doing intervals the best I could manage was
20 seconds on
40 seconds rest
12 intervals
HR could get into the low 170s at the same pace. These are somewhat intimidating to start, but over with quickly.

Only doing 1x session per week I could feel a difference in my wind after 3 weeks or so, notable after 8 weeks.
 
TedDK said:
I know that some people try to ‘sell’ it as new. But nothing new in what you write.
Click to expand...
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that it's a new discovery. Just look at the cycling programs from the 50/60's, a lot of LISS for hours every day. I meant that we're still learning new things about the benefits, on the cell signalling level, with AMPK, TFAM and other signalling molecules. But yes, people have been doing polarized training for ages, but there was a recent surge in a pyramid style training distribution.
 
John K said:
Null results are still important in science, as they provide researchers information on what hasn’t worked and how they may change to see better results. Or, as you suggest, their means for assessing may be inadequate and the study can be repeated with different assessments to see if that was the flaw. Not all research works perfectly and hiding failures stymies scientific progress.

It is also important, when coming across a result that we disagree with, to reconsider our own biases as well as critique the study. Do we say the study must be wrong because of the result, or is there a flaw we can see that may have caused that result? Is there room to update our opinions to incorporate that study? If we simply say the result of a study isn’t what we think it should be and so they must be wrong, I’d suggest the problem is more us than the research. At that point, even finding research that supports our conclusions is just an exercise in confirming our bias; we must look at what the bulk of research says, not just cherry pick studies that support what we already “know.”
Click to expand...
Nothing to disagree indeed. Thanks for taking time to answer.
 
North Coast Miller said:
Absolutely.
Again, I’m not going to claim it is better etc than zone 2 in any way except the following:
- time efficient
- body comp

With the exception of about 12 weeks total over the last 3 years I’ve essentially used only HIIT 2-3 times per week. I’d say its comparable to 3or 4 x per week 40 minute runs in terms of basic aerobic fitness plus very good recovery from higher intensity effort. More than good enough for long term GPP and health.

Ideally one would do both LISS and HIIT 80/20. But if one is avoiding HIIT because of belief it is either ineffective for aerobic and mitochondrial health or possibly even harmful, one has been misinformed.
Click to expand...
:) Isometrics for strength and hypertrophy, HIIT for cardio, Keto for diet. This is a totally different level of determination!
 
TBH, unless you're competing in something, I don't think gen pop needs to spend a lot of mental cycles worrying about maxing mitochrondrial adaptations.

Heck, even when I do compete in rowing, I don't spend much mental energy on thinking about the biological processes.

Instead, I just look at my times.
 
Last edited:
watchnerd said:
TBH, unless you're competing in something, I don't think gen pop needs to spend a lot of mental cycles worrying about maxing mitochrondrial adaptations.

Heck, even when I do compete in rowing, I don't spend much mental energy on thinking about the biological processes.

Instead, I just look at my times.
Click to expand...
Dont Think too much - just train.
You get better training, not thinking about training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom