Kettlebell Periodization in Kettlebell-Verse

[barrak]

This rant is in hope of starting a discussion and gaining insights with the objective of properly selecting kettlebell programming to match my running annual training plan (ATP).

Running programming is all about periodization from Base to Build to Peak to Transition (to borrow Joe Friel's language), so that the body doesn't get hammered all the time and eventually succumb to over-training and injuries. Competitive kettlebellers seem to be mindful of this necessity as well. However, the general kettlebell enthusiasts on this forum don't seem to care for it or appreciate it... until they burn out or get injured (I'm referring to my own past history as well).

For example, doing multiple rounds of ROP then switching to, say, multiple rounds of Q&D involves a continuous almost year long bout of weekly Zone 4 or 5 intervals. Even if the main goal is strength or mass gains and the targeted muscle groups are somewhat varied from one program to the next, I'm starting to suspect that the general trend is counterproductive. I'm not sure taking a week off, only to jump straight back to Zone 4-5 training, is what competitive athletes would typically do, unless they have a stretched Peak season.

Shouldn't periodization apply to kettlebell training for both targeted muscle groups and heart rate zones? If so, what would an ATP kettlebell progression look like?

More to my immediate objective, what would be good kettlebell programming to complement my running ATP during the following phases:
Phase I: Aerobic base development (Zones 1 and 2) and max strength development.
Phase II: Muscular endurance and speed skills development (sub-anaerobic) and strength maintenance.
Phase III: VO2Max development

I'm targeting my very first 5K and 10K events next spring. I just finished 3 of 12 weeks of of formal Phase I training, after ramping up my weekly run miles from zero to 20 miles throughout the summer. I have been including (during the last three weeks) heavy sets (2-3 reps) of C+P twice a week, heavy sandbag clean & carries once a week, light paused getups once a week, and pistol progressions twice a week.

 

[james_1127]

A+A and a lot of AGT endurance stuff is mainly Z2/Z3 work and blends well with base building aerobic work

S&S and Q&D does push a little acid but you shouldn't hit Z5

I usually use this sequence
A+A -> Q&D or S&S -> higher rep acid protocols (basically sprints with long rest)

 

[Steve W.]

I'm not sure I buy the premise here.

Most kettlebell training (at least most of my training, which generally follows StrongFirst principles and programs) is not geared toward preparing for a competitive season or peaking in any way. It's more park bench, punch the clock training that never gets too intense or could be described as "hammering" the body. Someone watching me train might completely miss me actually lifting anything if they get bored watching me stand around between sets and aren't paying attention.

I'm not sure what zone 4 or 5 means in the context of kettlebells (I never use a heartrate monitor), but my training is mostly at a relaxed. low to moderate overall level of effort

For instance, Q&D is relatively low volume and density, and involves lots of waviness of the volume. Using 044 timing and the standard 5/4 or 10/2 rep schemes, it's 20 reps every 4 minutes, never more than 10 reps in a set, and between 40 and 100 total reps 3x/week. I'll often do snatch sessions using 015 timing, which is 10 reps on the 3 minutes for 10 sets.

A+A training is also pretty low density and involves waviness of the volume. Even though each rep is high power and the total volume can be substantial, the overall effort is very relaxed.

ROP does work up to substantial volume in terms of the press ladders, but the rest time is autoregulated and the volume waves weekly through heavy, light, and medium days.

Even the Geoff Neupert-style complexes, which can very high effort, almost always have waviness within each week, often an autoregulatory component, and use relatively light loads.

I think where people get themselves into trouble is less a lack of periodization than a lack of patience.

For instance, I think a lot of people rush through the ROP cycle. With lighter bells, you can kind of get away with it. But when the load gets more challenging, it often pays to spend more time at one level of volume and not add reps every week following a predetermined progression, especially when adding a top rung to the heavy day triggers a new top rung on medium day. And I think a lot of people rest a lot less than they could. When I do ROP, I often rest a number of minutes equal to the number of reps in a set. But I read about people doing whole ladders without putting the bell down at all.

 

[barrak]

@Steve W. , autoregulation is also used for anaerobic sprint intervals. That's how one is able to repeatedly train that system in a session. The general cue for Q&D or the Giant, as examples, is to use maximal power during a set and only cut it short if form is compromised or the lift slows down. Q&D even asks for forced eccentrics and high cadence!

I guess I'm bemoaning the lack of overall kettlebell strategies that position such programs in their rightful seasonal places within annual training plans that maintain effective and injury-free progression year over year.

As a data point, I used a chest strap back in July while doing the Giant 1.1 and I was consistently hitting 90% and 95% of my measured max heart rate on every set during medium and heavy days, respectively. I was autoregulating my rests (3-4 minutes) and showed minimal cardiac drift during those sessions. I also remember my ROP sessions from years past were a lot more stressful... to the point of sustaining shoulder injuries due to pushed densities. (Yes, I was old and foolish then. I'm older now, but not much wiser).

 

[Pete L]

I'm starting to suspect that the general trend is counterproductive.

Sounds like you're practicing with the pedal to the metal and ignoring the highly emphasised talk test.
ROP can be run with as much or as little rest as one chooses. I agree that the cycle is perhaps a tad too long but it builds from a low volume base linearly.
Q&D has no block progression but the daily waviness is intended to make it wholly sustainable.
My experience of S&S is that a step cycle offers a clear linear progression but the intensity is always at the control of the participant and I have found that the remaining progression comes from the base building driven by the talk test and more glycolytic session.
I really don't agree with your conclusion.

 

[John K]

This rant is in hope of starting a discussion and gaining insights with the objective of properly selecting kettlebell programming to match my running annual training plan (ATP).

Running programming is all about periodization from Base to Build to Peak to Transition (to borrow Joe Friel's language), so that the body doesn't get hammered all the time and eventually succumb to over-training and injuries. Competitive kettlebellers seem to be mindful of this necessity as well. However, the general kettlebell enthusiasts on this forum don't seem to care for it or appreciate it... until they burn out or get injured (I'm referring to my own past history as well).

For example, doing multiple rounds of ROP then switching to, say, multiple rounds of Q&D involves a continuous almost year long bout of weekly Zone 4 or 5 intervals. Even if the main goal is strength or mass gains and the targeted muscle groups are somewhat varied from one program to the next, I'm starting to suspect that the general trend is counterproductive. I'm not sure taking a week off, only to jump straight back to Zone 4-5 training, is what competitive athletes would typically do, unless they have a stretched Peak season.

Shouldn't periodization apply to kettlebell training for both targeted muscle groups and heart rate zones? If so, what would an ATP kettlebell progression look like?

More to my immediate objective, what would be good kettlebell programming to complement my running ATP during the following phases:
Phase I: Aerobic base development (Zones 1 and 2) and max strength development.
Phase II: Muscular endurance and speed skills development (sub-anaerobic) and strength maintenance.
Phase III: VO2Max development

I'm targeting my very first 5K and 10K events next spring. I just finished 3 of 12 weeks of of formal Phase I training, after ramping up my weekly run miles from zero to 20 miles throughout the summer. I have been including (during the last three weeks) heavy sets (2-3 reps) of C+P twice a week, heavy sandbag clean & carries once a week, light paused getups once a week, and pistol progressions twice a week.

Hi Barrak,

Good thoughts, good conversations. It is making me think. You're coming at this a little different than me, but about two weeks ago I had an email exchange with a fairly popular kettlebell trainer about something similar - in my background (barbell training, specifically powerlifting and dabbling in weightlifting) it was rarely a "program" thing but more of a "Overarching Philosophy." Westside, or 531, or MED aren't programs, they are ways to structure training. I haven't seen something like that from the kettlebell universe (although I also haven't been to Strong Endurance or Plan Strong, so maybe that's where they keep the juicy stuff); he stated that there simply wasn't demand - people want programs. (I dislike programs because it makes me think of all the trashy rags "6 weeks to abs" "6 weeks to your biggest guns yet" "tone and sculpt - 6 weeks to that beach body" etc...)

I hope you see how I'm connecting your thought and my thought. I see where you're coming from. I used to be a decent runner, but years of going hard and fast left me ground up and injured, and it took a long time before I could run again, and I learned a lot from Andrew Read's running program and from trainers like Phil Maffetone, Steven Seiler, Steve House and Mike Prevost.

Here's what I think tempers what you're saying.

First, I think kettlebelling has more in common with lifting than it does running. Also, not everyone that coaches running believes in block periodization for running - quite a few would be more concurrent a la Westside than block (what you're describing).

Second, most kettlebellers aren't advanced enough or consistent enough to need periodization. You don't need to periodize lifting until you get well past the novice stage, and you don't need to enter block periodization until you're fairly advanced.

If, with kettlebelling, you are not consistent - or you do a program here, have a week or two (or five) fooling around, then a program here ... You don't really need to periodize. A common thing I see in kettlebelling is autoregulation - ballistics until you feel the power drop, focus on strong reps and avoiding grinding reps, etc. This also aligns kettlebelling more with weight training that with running. Now, with sport, I think it flips all this on its head and you do see much more in common with running than with lifting, so I think the demands shift.

I have seen block style periodization with snatching - I have the following written in my notes which I think was based off of something I heard or read, but I don't know who or when:

Base building 1:

Snatch Session 1:

• Sets of 5-10 done AGT style with test-size KB
• Work up to 200 reps in a session on occassion
• Do 5 reps every 30-60s or 10 reps every 1-2 min
• Stop as soon as your reps start to slow down

Swing Session 1:

• Heavy two handed swings with moderate rest
• Sets of 10 OTM or sets of 5 OT30s
• 100 reps per session is good, but you could go up to 150-200
• You can do either two-handed swings or double kb swings
• Stop as soon as your reps start to slow down

Base building 2:

Snatch Session 1:

• Use a KB 4-8kg above the size you plan to test with
• Do about 50 snatches per session (50-100 reps per session), usually in sets of 3-10 reps
  • E.g. 10 sets of 5 OTM
  • E.g. 5 sets of 5/5 OT2M
• Hold lockout a little extra long

Snatch Session 2 / Swing Session 1:

• Work up to sets of 25+ per hand with your test-size KB
• OR do sets of 20 with ~50% heaver KB for swings
• 2-4 sets per arm per session taking plenty of rest - e.g. 5 min rest between sets
• e.g do a set on your left arm for as many as pretty, then rest actively; then do a set on your right arm. Repeat 2-4 times.

Peaking:
Swing Session 1:

• Use a KB ~50% heavier than your test KB, try to average 15-20 reps per minute for 5-7 minutes
• e.g. 5 reps every 20s, 7-10 reps ever 30s, 15 reps every 1 min
• Do these as the last thing in your session!
• Keep reps explosive!

Snatch Session 1:

• Using your test size KB, try to get up to 70 reps without seeing the bell down, unlimited hand switches
• If you can hit 70 without setting it down, you’re probably good to get 100 on your test.
• Find a sustainable breathing pattern, and do your first hand switch about 10 reps under your max
• Do these at the end of your session or as a stand alone quick session

P.S. I love the annual periodization that you see from folks like Stew Smith. I wish that had been around 15 years ago, I might not've gotten so chewed up.

 

[Steve W.]

The general cue for Q&D or the Giant, as examples, is to use maximal power during a set and only cut it short if form is compromised or the lift slows down. Q&D even asks for forced eccentrics and high cadence!

But the sets are relatively short and you get lots of rest (as much as you need in the case of the Giant). When doing Q&D 044 snatches (28kg x 10/2), I get a bit out of breath at the end of each set, but by the start of the next series I'm back to normal, and I don't even break a sweat until at least 4 series. A two series Q&D session is basically a day off.

As a data point, I used a chest strap back in July while doing the Giant 1.1 and I was consistently hitting 90% and 95% of my measured max heart rate on every set during medium and heavy days, respectively.

I can't argue with anyone else's experience, but I've been doing Giant 1.0 and my breathing is pretty close to normal by the time I'm ready to do a new set, although subjectively I'm sure my heartrate is elevated above resting. So far I've been in the 8-12 set range on the two higher rep days (I don't call them medium and heavy because the weight is always the same and my level of effort or even total volume isn't that different from day to day -- it just has a different feel doing more shorter sets or fewer longer sets). I call my approach "Easy Giant." I just want to get my work in without killing myself, and not worry the numbers. If I was really committed to "Easy Giant" I would not watch the clock or count sets at all, but I'm not that evolved as a human being ;-).

I was autoregulating my rests (3-4 minutes)

But were you autoregulating the load? Maybe a lighter bell would have been better. Were you autoregulating the rep scheme? Maybe 1.1 was not right for you at that time.

Yes, I was old and foolish then. I'm older now, but not much wiser.

I'm 57, and very high-mileage from lifetime of competitive basketball and sports injuries. I've definitely pushed myself way past the point of good sense when playing sports, and occasionally in training, especially when I was younger, and I still have a bit of that impatient drive going on, but I really try to keep it under control.

One of my favorite Dan John sayings is, "Train today like you plan to set a new PR tomorrow. Then train the same way tomorrow."

 

[Daniel Vintila]

I use that kind of periodization. In fact starting a new cycle right after TSC and hopefully will be the best one yet as this last one had many things that went wrong ( life happened).

You can build your own periodization based on your goals. In kettlebell training is not very popular as it is for a specific sport. Most people will just start a program and become good at it, and most of the programs are GPP.

This kind of program is made for someone who has a very specific goal in mind. For example beast tamer, TSC or S&S could benefit a periodization program. The only thing is that it won't be a minimalistic approach anymore.

It's very simple to start with a base mesocycle and work on GPP ( carries, pushes, pulls, hinges, squats, crawls) + aerobic activity. Volume is high intensity is low. 6-8 weeks. I like building circuits + 1 aerobic activity on different days.This mesocycle is where you build your work capacity, which for example allows you to handle all the volume from the next mesocycle.
After that move to a build mesocycle and work on SSP, Volume goes lower and intensity slightly higher. Speed, strength, skill specific training + anaerobic work. 6-8 weeks.
Peak with only the skills you want to become good at. Low volume high intensity.
Recovery for a few weeks and go again.

The problem is that this kind of program is very individualized, and has to be created from scratch based on many things: who the athlete is, where is the athlete right now, what does he want to achieve, previous experiences, and a few others.

But yeah totally doable, but not everyone needs one.

If your goal is running. 80% other skills 20% running during base mesocycle. 80% running 20% other skills that aid running during build and peak with running only.

 

[barrak]

Hi Barrak,

Good thoughts, good conversations. It is making me think. You're coming at this a little different than me, but about two weeks ago I had an email exchange with a fairly popular kettlebell trainer about something similar - in my background (barbell training, specifically powerlifting and dabbling in weightlifting) it was rarely a "program" thing but more of a "Overarching Philosophy." Westside, or 531, or MED aren't programs, they are ways to structure training. I haven't seen something like that from the kettlebell universe (although I also haven't been to Strong Endurance or Plan Strong, so maybe that's where they keep the juicy stuff); he stated that there simply wasn't demand - people want programs. (I dislike programs because it makes me think of all the trashy rags "6 weeks to abs" "6 weeks to your biggest guns yet" "tone and sculpt - 6 weeks to that beach body" etc...)

I hope you see how I'm connecting your thought and my thought. I see where you're coming from. I used to be a decent runner, but years of going hard and fast left me ground up and injured, and it took a long time before I could run again, and I learned a lot from Andrew Read's running program and from trainers like Phil Maffetone, Steven Seiler, Steve House and Mike Prevost.

Here's what I think tempers what you're saying.

First, I think kettlebelling has more in common with lifting than it does running. Also, not everyone that coaches running believes in block periodization for running - quite a few would be more concurrent a la Westside than block (what you're describing).

Second, most kettlebellers aren't advanced enough or consistent enough to need periodization. You don't need to periodize lifting until you get well past the novice stage, and you don't need to enter block periodization until you're fairly advanced.

If, with kettlebelling, you are not consistent - or you do a program here, have a week or two (or five) fooling around, then a program here ... You don't really need to periodize. A common thing I see in kettlebelling is autoregulation - ballistics until you feel the power drop, focus on strong reps and avoiding grinding reps, etc. This also aligns kettlebelling more with weight training that with running. Now, with sport, I think it flips all this on its head and you do see much more in common with running than with lifting, so I think the demands shift.

I have seen block style periodization with snatching - I have the following written in my notes which I think was based off of something I heard or read, but I don't know who or when:



P.S. I love the annual periodization that you see from folks like Stew Smith. I wish that had been around 15 years ago, I might not've gotten so chewed up.

That swing/snatch periodization sounds like a good planning start for me.

As to your other points, yes I've been wandering from one kettlebell "program" to the next for the past 5 years without any general plan, though I do complete the programs, and sometimes repeat them. This approach has kept me strong (but not always injury-free), and (so I thought) fit, until my initial foray this summer into running exposed how top heavy my cardiovascular fitness was. Sort of like an engine with plenty of high rpm horsepower and anemic low rpm torque.

This is easily fixed of course with LSD running, which is what I've been doing since June and with excellent results. I'm just interested in programming in appropriate kettlebell lifts moving forward that would efficiently aid strength building during the Base period without pushing HR beyond Zone 3. Light getups, heavy low-rep kettlebell C+P and heavy sandbag clean+carry are in my rotation now. I'll experiment with A+A snatches and see if they fit the bill for the latter part of Base training.

Others have commented that autoregulation and the talk test should bring the overall average heart rate down enough to consider the whole session as a zone 1-2 effort, and thus sustainable long term. I'm not totally convinced, as I really have been taking the talk test to heart for the past two years (S&S, Q&D, Giant, Sandbags, Mace swings) and yet my aerobic base hole never got filled. I wish it was that straightforward.

What would then prevent competitive runners from doing race-pace sprint intervals year round while employing a talk test rest approach? Is it just to give their legs a rest during the off season? They could simply switch to swimming intervals, for example, if high HR intervals per se are sustainable year round regardless of modality. (I'm just wondering aloud here... I understand I could be totally off-mark.)

My understanding is competitive runners back off high HR training considerably beyond their race season and deliberately allow their VO2Max to drop by as much as 8-10% before they start building up gradually to a new peak level as they approach their next race season.

My teenage boy (just qualified to the State cross-country finals) is now under a PT who attributes his serious injury last spring to ignoring this rule. Then again this PT believes barbell squats and all deadlifts are terrible for medium/long distance runners and highly recommends, instead, narrow stance deep squats and, even more so, pistols!!!

 

[james_1127]

@barrak you should look into strong endurance... they have loads of templates

An example if you wanted a pure progression then it could be

060 (totally aerobic, light load, long duration) basically a "jog" type feel

044 more of a middle ground, moderate load

A+A snatches heavy height, max power, long rest

 

[barrak]

I use that kind of periodization. In fact starting a new cycle right after TSC and hopefully will be the best one yet as this last one had many things that went wrong ( life happened).

You can build your own periodization based on your goals. In kettlebell training is not very popular as it is for a specific sport. Most people will just start a program and become good at it, and most of the programs are GPP.

This kind of program is made for someone who has a very specific goal in mind. For example beast tamer, TSC or S&S could benefit a periodization program. The only thing is that it won't be a minimalistic approach anymore.

It's very simple to start with a base mesocycle and work on GPP ( carries, pushes, pulls, hinges, squats, crawls) + aerobic activity. Volume is high intensity is low. 6-8 weeks. I like building circuits + 1 aerobic activity on different days.This mesocycle is where you build your work capacity, which for example allows you to handle all the volume from the next mesocycle.
After that move to a build mesocycle and work on SSP, Volume goes lower and intensity slightly higher. Speed, strength, skill specific training + anaerobic work. 6-8 weeks.
Peak with only the skills you want to become good at. Low volume high intensity.
Recovery for a few weeks and go again.

The problem is that this kind of program is very individualized, and has to be created from scratch based on many things: who the athlete is, where is the athlete right now, what does he want to achieve, previous experiences, and a few others.

But yeah totally doable, but not everyone needs one.

If your goal is running. 80% other skills 20% running during base mesocycle. 80% running 20% other skills that aid running during build and peak with running only.

Some good pointers here... Thanks. Such a hybrid ATP needs to be very personalized, it seems, as you say. I'm currently doing 40% running and 60% strength and other skills. The bulk of my running is sub-aerobic as I'm still seeing linear progress in my aerobic gains and would hate to taper too soon.

 

[John K]

That swing/snatch periodization sounds like a good planning start for me.

Let me know how it works, how you modify it, etc.! I have dozens of notes written in a notebook and half the time (like this time) there is no attribution to it, so I don't know if I hurriedly wrote it down while listening to something or if I concocted it from scratch/inspired by something. The snatch plan I'm currently on is another one that I don't know if it is "mine" or if I got it from somewhere... If it works, I probably got it from somewhere, if it doesn't it is probably mine!

As to your other points, yes I've been wandering from one kettlebell "program" to the next for the past 5 years without any general plan, though I do complete the programs, and sometimes repeat them. This approach has kept me strong (but not always injury-free), and (so I thought) fit, until my initial foray this summer into running exposed how top heavy my cardiovascular fitness was. Sort of like an engine with plenty of high rpm horsepower and anemic low rpm torque.

I have seen very little carryover from kettlebells to running. I did S&S exclusively for about a year when I first got into kettlebells, working past Simple timed, but when I returned to running my nose-breathing Maffetone HR pace (~11:30-12:00) was a little below my previous pace (10:00-10:30). From one perspective, I did no running and barely lost fitness. From another perspective, there was no carryover...

This is easily fixed of course with LSD running, which is what I've been doing since June and with excellent results. I'm just interested in programming in appropriate kettlebell lifts moving forward that would efficiently aid strength building during the Base period without pushing HR beyond Zone 3. Light getups, heavy low-rep kettlebell C+P and heavy sandbag clean+carry are in my rotation now. I'll experiment with A+A snatches and see if they fit the bill for the latter part of Base training.

Others have commented that autoregulation and the talk test should bring the overall average heart rate down enough to consider the whole session as a zone 1-2 effort, and thus sustainable long term. I'm not totally convinced, as I really have been taking the talk test to heart for the past two years (S&S, Q&D, Giant, Sandbags, Mace swings) and yet my aerobic base hole never got filled. I wish it was that straightforward.

Do you approach kettlebelling more like strength training or more like running? When strength training, e.g. squatting for heavy sets of 5, your HR would skyrocket - I don't know what zone - but that wouldn't "conflict" or "contribute" to running/aerobic fitness. For me, kettlebelling is similar. I wouldn't be concerned what my heart rate is, and allow my kettlebell training to be specific to what I want and my running training to being specific to what I want and to try and organize them such that they don't get in each other's way. I'm not a great athlete though, and most of my training since May until very recently has either been mostly non-existent or highly polarized due to dealing with one niggling injury or another... (Shin splints. I was smarter than that! Friggin shin splints... now tendonitis? I'm falling apart!)

Here's a thought - you say that the autoregulating talk test makes it sustainable long-term, but that your aerobic base hole wasn't filled... But those aren't mutually exclusive. Autoregulating talk test allows you to continue training that activity long-term (e.g. C&Ping for a year and making improvements), but it doesn't necessarily say that it'll improve your running. (One, lack of skill practice; two, it may not actually be building the cardiovascular system appropriately - e.g. less dense capillaries, thickening but not stretching the heart.)

What would then prevent competitive runners from doing race-pace sprint intervals year round while employing a talk test rest approach? Is it just to give their legs a rest during the off season? They could simply switch to swimming intervals, for example, if high HR intervals per se are sustainable year round regardless of modality. (I'm just wondering aloud here... I understand I could be totally off-mark.)

I am far from an expert, and from talking with folks much more knowledgeable than me there is significant disagreement. Considering how popular polarized training and 80/20 training has become thanks to folks like Stephen Seiler and Matt Fitzgerald, it seems that people aren't getting rid of high-intensity efforts. (And as for switching to another modality - it might be fine for the gen pop, but higher skilled individuals don't do that due to the lack of skill and lack of carryover. A bike sprint for a runner is inefficient (low skill) and ineffective (bike sprint carrys over to bike sprints, not to road sprints).) There is a significant skill component to running, and to running quickly, and there seems to be a lot of trainers that think that itself is the main reason to include them year round.

 

[John K]

Part 2 will come in a minute... browser issue...

Edit - well my computer isn't letting me post a response now... I'll have to figure this out later.

 

[John K]

My understanding is competitive runners back off high HR training considerably beyond their race season and deliberately allow their VO2Max to drop by as much as 8-10% before they start building up gradually to a new peak level as they approach their next race season.

After reading House I stopped thinking in terms of building VO2xmax. In my mind it is more like basebuilding in lifting - if your aerobic max is 10 min/mile, you won't be able to peak as high as if you built your aerobic base to 8 min/mile. It is also mentally and physically easier to have an aerobic basebuilding block. This creates an off-season that is productive (setting you up for better races) but also restorative.

The problem with this is that not everyone has the luxury to have off-seasons - it might be great for a single sport athlete, but it is more problematic with multiple sport athletes and/or tactical athletes.

Anyways, this is basically how I was trying to end my post, but my computer is being super difficult. Hopefully it figures itself out!

 

[barrak]

But were you autoregulating the load? Maybe a lighter bell would have been better. Were you autoregulating the rep scheme? Maybe 1.1 was not right for you at that time.

I'm 57, and very high-mileage from lifetime of competitive basketball and sports injuries. I've definitely pushed myself way past the point of good sense when playing sports, and occasionally in training, especially when I was younger, and I still have a bit of that impatient drive going on, but I really try to keep it under control.

One of my favorite Dan John sayings is, "Train today like you plan to set a new PR tomorrow. Then train the same way tomorrow."

I was sticking to the Giant 1.1 program as is. It was preceded by 3.0-1.0 sequence, and my weight was my 10RM at the start of 1.0.

Speaking of lifetime endeavors... funny how some memories get buried deep. Just the other day I remembered something my boy would've found seriously interesting, being a competitive varsity team member himself... I totally forgot over the decades that I was on my high school's basketball varsity!

 

[John K]

Not working... Very frustrating... I can post short things but nothing much suddenly.

 

[barrak]

Let me know how it works, how you modify it, etc.! I have dozens of notes written in a notebook and half the time (like this time) there is no attribution to it, so I don't know if I hurriedly wrote it down while listening to something or if I concocted it from scratch/inspired by something. The snatch plan I'm currently on is another one that I don't know if it is "mine" or if I got it from somewhere... If it works, I probably got it from somewhere, if it doesn't it is probably mine!

I have seen very little carryover from kettlebells to running. I did S&S exclusively for about a year when I first got into kettlebells, working past Simple timed, but when I returned to running my nose-breathing Maffetone HR pace (~11:30-12:00) was a little below my previous pace (10:00-10:30). From one perspective, I did no running and barely lost fitness. From another perspective, there was no carryover...

Do you approach kettlebelling more like strength training or more like running? When strength training, e.g. squatting for heavy sets of 5, your HR would skyrocket - I don't know what zone - but that wouldn't "conflict" or "contribute" to running/aerobic fitness. For me, kettlebelling is similar. I wouldn't be concerned what my heart rate is, and allow my kettlebell training to be specific to what I want and my running training to being specific to what I want and to try and organize them such that they don't get in each other's way. I'm not a great athlete though, and most of my training since May until very recently has either been mostly non-existent or highly polarized due to dealing with one niggling injury or another... (Shin splints. I was smarter than that! Friggin shin splints... now tendonitis? I'm falling apart!)

Here's a thought - you say that the autoregulating talk test makes it sustainable long-term, but that your aerobic base hole wasn't filled... But those aren't mutually exclusive. Autoregulating talk test allows you to continue training that activity long-term (e.g. C&Ping for a year and making improvements), but it doesn't necessarily say that it'll improve your running. (One, lack of skill practice; two, it may not actually be building the cardiovascular system appropriately - e.g. less dense capillaries, thickening but not stretching the heart.)


I am far from an expert, and from talking with folks much more knowledgeable than me there is significant disagreement. Considering how popular polarized training and 80/20 training has become thanks to folks like Stephen Seiler and Matt Fitzgerald, it seems that people aren't getting rid of high-intensity efforts. (And as for switching to another modality - it might be fine for the gen pop, but higher skilled individuals don't do that due to the lack of skill and lack of carryover. A bike sprint for a runner is inefficient (low skill) and ineffective (bike sprint carrys over to bike sprints, not to road sprints).) There is a significant skill component to running, and to running quickly, and there seems to be a lot of trainers that think that itself is the main reason to include them year round.

Good points all around. Thank you my friend, and all other kind souls for taking the time to educate me.

 

[Pete L]

I'm not totally convinced, as I really have been taking the talk test to heart for the past two years (S&S, Q&D, Giant, Sandbags, Mace swings) and yet my aerobic base hole never got filled.

Perhaps we've been focusing on different forum threads but my take away from forum engagement is that LISS is almost universally recommended as a complimentary form of exercise to that which SF specialises in.
If you're interested, during my recent S&D step load to Timeless with 36 kg my average heart rate was 104 bpm (approximately 60%) and only peaked above 70% during the TGU sets and never into 80%.
There is no talk test in Q&D.

 

[John K]

@barrak - I was able to edit post number 14 to finish my thought. My computer is having some serious issues posting anything very long, but I'll spare you my tribulations.

 

[offwidth]

@barrak
Are you targeting times for your 5k and 10k?

Also @Coyotl post #14 is 100% spot from my perspective.