Kettlebell Program Hopping
- Thread starter Adam R Mundorf
- Start date
- Status
Xcal
Level 5 Valued Member
Its about the journey, not the destination. I 100% believe this.
Ege
Level 6 Valued Member
This thread is indeed very helpful to me. I was talking to my self more than answering comments. I believe the most important thing is the consistency at the end of the day. I was able to be consistent by program hoping in the last one and a half years. Now if I can show consistency with a tested and tried program than the outcome I believe will be more predictable.
North Coast Miller
Level 9 Valued Member
FWIW, even with my homebrew programming I have to stay with it for about…4-6 weeks to see if it is working/works. During this time it is important to operate with confidence that it is a good path. Often I will stay on a training block for 12-16weeks or longer, most of these blocks characterized by changes in mode - which changes execution ( lifting speed, cadence etc ) somewhat by default.
Also during this time I will very seldom add anything, normally will remove components to improve recovery.
Consistency and intensity of effort are both important. Phoning it in won’t work very well.
Also during this time I will very seldom add anything, normally will remove components to improve recovery.
Consistency and intensity of effort are both important. Phoning it in won’t work very well.
TL;DR for this thread, but I’ll take a different approach.
Your issue is a lack of clarity and focus. “General health” whatever that means is not specific. You may do better with a very clearly defined goal, no matter how arbitrary it is. Write it out, put it on a sticky note on your mirror or training space, whatever… remind yourself of it, repeat it to yourself daily.
Next, you have too many options, too many choices and too much exposure to other people doing programs and having varied success. It’s too easy to have discussion after discussion and conversation after conversation. Stop surfing forums (including S1), reading articles, listening to podcasts, following people or personalities. Let go of all of this for a period of time; doesn’t need to be forever or long-term even. Right now, all you are doing is adding more tools to your toolkit without actually learning to use them and experience what they have to offer. Only then you will succeed.
If the above doesn’t help you, then consider getting a dedicated coach or mentor for a period of time, to both sharpen your focus, teach you to use the tools in the tool box. You also have a high chance of success if you spend some money. This step isn’t necessary unless it is.
Summary
1. Become clear on your goal, even if it’s arbitrary. Make it obtainable and short term for the moment.
2. Filter out all the inputs until only you remain. Stop collecting tools for the toolbox and watching others. Learn how to do your own thing.
3. Consider getting a coach or a mentor that can help you hone your skill and learn how to focus.
I hope this helps.
Your issue is a lack of clarity and focus. “General health” whatever that means is not specific. You may do better with a very clearly defined goal, no matter how arbitrary it is. Write it out, put it on a sticky note on your mirror or training space, whatever… remind yourself of it, repeat it to yourself daily.
Next, you have too many options, too many choices and too much exposure to other people doing programs and having varied success. It’s too easy to have discussion after discussion and conversation after conversation. Stop surfing forums (including S1), reading articles, listening to podcasts, following people or personalities. Let go of all of this for a period of time; doesn’t need to be forever or long-term even. Right now, all you are doing is adding more tools to your toolkit without actually learning to use them and experience what they have to offer. Only then you will succeed.
If the above doesn’t help you, then consider getting a dedicated coach or mentor for a period of time, to both sharpen your focus, teach you to use the tools in the tool box. You also have a high chance of success if you spend some money. This step isn’t necessary unless it is.
Summary
1. Become clear on your goal, even if it’s arbitrary. Make it obtainable and short term for the moment.
2. Filter out all the inputs until only you remain. Stop collecting tools for the toolbox and watching others. Learn how to do your own thing.
3. Consider getting a coach or a mentor that can help you hone your skill and learn how to focus.
I hope this helps.
Fair enough.
I disagree. Kettlebell Simple and Sinister's ease of adherence is part of the package. Simple programming, simple progressions, detailed instruction on a limited number of lifts, a "like you brush your teeth every day" mentality with relatively little pushing yourself hard.
German Volume Training, not so much.
All the above doesn't mean it's for everybody. As I said in @Adam R Mundorf's thread, if the goal isn't important, then just that you're doing something as regards strength and conditioning in a safe manner is about all that needs to matter.
JMO, YMMV.
-S-
Whenever I do this I always make fantastic progress and am incredibly consistent. 100% +1.
bluejeff
Level 7 Valued Member
Excellent point.
I, too, can fall into the trap of "paralysis by analysis" due to having too many options. It can be all too easy to read what is working for someone else and think that particular thing will make all the difference in my goals. However, while it might be an effective method, it will only be as effective as I am adherent to it.
I may be repeating myself, but I have found that when something is working, I tend to stick to it. If something makes me feel good/better, it's easier to keep doing it. I allow myself my "training candy" from time to time (to scratch the itch), but ultimately feel better when I stick to what is actually giving me the results I am after. It can be nice to "fall in love" with a particular method AND I think that at the end of the day, all the methods are tools to acheive an outcome. A good question to ask is how attached you are to the tools, and how attached or focused you are on the outcomes. Learning to use the tools, and use them well, one after another, may be a more productive route than trying all of them out but never getting good at any of them.
Ido Portal had/has a philosophy of "isolation, integration, improvisation." First, one practices particular skills until they have some level of proficiency in them. Then they can integrate skills together. Finally, after understanding how skills compliment each other and can flow together, the practitioner can improvise new skills. I think the same line of thinking can apply to programs or training methods. You have to hinge before you can swing, before you can clean, snatch, etc.... You have to try proven programs to understand loading and recovery before you make your own programs....
To finish regarding the quote above, maybe it doesn't have to be "cut everything out," but it can be as simple as "you only get a certain amount of time per day on the forum," or a limited amount of podcasts per week, or something.
These are all great points, and I'd say generally true.
@Adam R Mundorf , my advice is specific to you based on my observation as well as what I had to do to finally stop the program hop. Step away from collecting knowledge and filter out all the inputs. Select a path. Be hard headed about it, and consider coaching for accountability and teaching you to hone your mindset.
Xcal
Level 5 Valued Member
this is a fantastic observation! my intuitive approach to dealing with this has been:
1. stick with the swings and TGU as the main activity 3day/week for 2 months
2. 'play' with a few tools on the off days, e.g. Lunges to support TGU. walking 2-4km per week with the KB. etc
3. pickup new advanced tools as I settled down with primary tools. eg. I now do a few sets of snatches a week without getting hurt
now that you stated this 'theory' in Black and White, I will be assessing how best I can add and learn new tools for my toolbox. this is great life stuff, not just training!
100% @Steve Freides
The beauty of S&S is it allows you to put your focus on skill development and self-exploration with less mental effort toward deciphering and constructing a training plan. The tangible or hard skills (mechanics of the lifts, talk test application, muscle recruitment) as well as the intangibles (mindset, body awareness, meditative components, etc…)
The number of inputs are limited and distilled, and you can truly focus on the foundational skills that allow for greater benefit and provide a strong foundation to launch other initiatives or interests.
It is not a requirement that someone starts with S&S as their core practice and sticks with it until the reach Simple, however it’s a rock-solid approach to the fundamentals and principles behind S1 methodology and practical application, while delivering a broad range of strength and conditioning benefits.
As a practical component, reverse lunges (single or double rack) are an outstanding exercise and they add a nice complement to GU development.
watchnerd
Level 8 Valued Member
In Defense of Program Hoppers; DUP Revisited • Stronger by Science
Are you a serial program hopper? Maybe it's because you haven't found a program that meshes with your style. Bonus: Analyzing DUP's effectiveness.
www.strongerbyscience.com
silveraw
Level 9 Valued Member
I'm reading "40 years with a whistle" right now and this reminded me of one of Dan's concepts for planning training. It was thinking of your training as tree rings. Everything needs to build on the previous ring to move you towards your goal. It is OK to go back and revisit rings (like doing the fundamentals), but keep on building the rings to move towards your goal.
watchnerd
Level 8 Valued Member
What I find odd about today's current fitness environment is how often completing a program *is* the goal.
I guess I'm used to competing in sports, where the training is not the objective, it's just a tool to (hopefully) help you win.
Antti
Level 10 Valued Member
That's it.
I think this often makes programs and their effectiveness hard to estimate. I would always prefer hard performance metrics. SMART goals, as in specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound.
Even if the goal is to just be fit in general, I think having concrete performance goals is a better idea than just swinging by. But to each his own.
Bauer
Level 8 Valued Member
OK, I think even program hopping can have a planned component. For example, I think it would be a good idea to find a person, whose programming style matches your likings. And that can probably only learned by testing a couple of styles.
The way I think about it is in terms of fixed and free parts. Which parameters are pre-determined and which ones are up to you? I firmly believe that long-term programs need the right mix of structure and leeway for you and your circumstance.
For example:
Pavel: Mostly frequent training, focus on 2-3 exercises, 3-5 reps for grind 5-10 reps for ballistics. Mostly predetermined volume per session, with generous rest (often auto-regulated), open session length. When to move forward is either prescribed, or (especially in most recent programs) based on subjective mastery of a given step ("until you can do it with condfindence", "pass the talk test"), or when you plateau. Mostly conservative progression.
Conditioning/power plans: Newer plans with predetermined rest periods and goals for volume or session length. Clear guidelines for progessing, based on performance. Sometimes elements of randomization with a die-roll.
Geoff Neupert: Usually 3x per week, focus on 1-5 exercises. Oftentimes fixed amount of session length and autoregulated total volume (escalating density). Focus on progressing by using specific rep schemes. Programming in different 4-week blocks that build on each other. A bit more focus on "higher" reps than Pavel. Mostly programmed with a single double KB exercise, but sometimes also single KB + a variety of exercises. Great for people who need a fixed a amount of workout time and want that small challenge for each training day.
Fabio Zonin: Very specific sets, reps, rest-periods and total volume. Reps per set a bit higher than Pavel but usually between 5-10 reps per set. Moderate to high volume. Relatively long session length. Usually 2-3 grinds (strength and hypertrophy focused). Ballistics optional. Usually 8-week programs with two phases, ending with a prescribed RM-test.
Even with only those three, the options are manyfold. But it might be a good idea to test the three programming styles (probably in 2-4 week blocks) and then to decided on a path. So far I really like prescribed and wavy volume with open session length (generous, autoregulated rest) and some leeway for off-days and progression --> thus following plans by Pavel.
The way I think about it is in terms of fixed and free parts. Which parameters are pre-determined and which ones are up to you? I firmly believe that long-term programs need the right mix of structure and leeway for you and your circumstance.
For example:
Pavel: Mostly frequent training, focus on 2-3 exercises, 3-5 reps for grind 5-10 reps for ballistics. Mostly predetermined volume per session, with generous rest (often auto-regulated), open session length. When to move forward is either prescribed, or (especially in most recent programs) based on subjective mastery of a given step ("until you can do it with condfindence", "pass the talk test"), or when you plateau. Mostly conservative progression.
Conditioning/power plans: Newer plans with predetermined rest periods and goals for volume or session length. Clear guidelines for progessing, based on performance. Sometimes elements of randomization with a die-roll.
Geoff Neupert: Usually 3x per week, focus on 1-5 exercises. Oftentimes fixed amount of session length and autoregulated total volume (escalating density). Focus on progressing by using specific rep schemes. Programming in different 4-week blocks that build on each other. A bit more focus on "higher" reps than Pavel. Mostly programmed with a single double KB exercise, but sometimes also single KB + a variety of exercises. Great for people who need a fixed a amount of workout time and want that small challenge for each training day.
Fabio Zonin: Very specific sets, reps, rest-periods and total volume. Reps per set a bit higher than Pavel but usually between 5-10 reps per set. Moderate to high volume. Relatively long session length. Usually 2-3 grinds (strength and hypertrophy focused). Ballistics optional. Usually 8-week programs with two phases, ending with a prescribed RM-test.
Even with only those three, the options are manyfold. But it might be a good idea to test the three programming styles (probably in 2-4 week blocks) and then to decided on a path. So far I really like prescribed and wavy volume with open session length (generous, autoregulated rest) and some leeway for off-days and progression --> thus following plans by Pavel.
Steve W.
Level 8 Valued Member
Not so odd.
I've competed in sports my whole life. But in my sport (basketball), no one cares how much you can lift and it mostly doesn't matter. Kevin Durant famously couldn't do a single bench press rep with 185lbs at the scouting combine. As Dan John says, the role of the strength coach may be clear, but the impact of the strength coach is often very fuzzy.
Does strength training make me a better player? A bit fuzzy. In some ways, I think it does, but I have no way to actually measure this. And I often think that more time spent on skills practice and less time on physical preparation would have a much bigger impact on my actual play.
Does strength training directly affect winning games? Even fuzzier.
Then there's the fact that although I might be a serious and competitive recreational player, and it's a significant part of my identity, I don't get paid to do it, and it's just one part of my life, which is very hectic and high stress (and it's just one part of my physically active/training/sporting life). I do want my training to support and complement my play (and play is a key word here), but that's more of a general purpose than a specific goal.
So completing a program is not a goal, as in being able to check a box that I've finished it. My goals are to maintain the continuity of the training process within the other constraints in my life, and enjoy doing it. A program is just a structure for doing that. So doing the program, engaging in the actual practice from day to day, is a goal. But completing a program is just something that happens as a result of that.
- Status