Kettlebell S&S frequency and weight

[watchnerd]

Sorry for not being clear here. I meant these would be sort of goals instead of something one could just choose to start doing. So if I for example can do 3-4 sessions a week with a 32kg at the moment, can I have a goal of being able to handle 32kg "almost daily" instead of keeping the frequency at 3-4 and going heavier, and what are the pros and cons in the results.

When it comes to general fitness (not sport specific), when faced with these questions I ask myself:

"What's the cost / benefit of the extra training time to progress from to a heavier 'daily driver' kettlebell swing vs working on something else totally different?"

For me, the fitness ROI in progressing from a 32 kg to 36 kg daily swing is not nearly as good as taking that same time and working on something I'm weak at.

In other words, what's the opportunity cost?

There are diminishing returns to most exercises and dangers in over-specialization.

 

[watchnerd]

I whole heartedly agree that one could hit the simple standard by other paths. But in the end, your not "doing the program"

Off the shelf programs are created blind without knowing the specifics of any given reader.

Programs are templates -- starting points.

Personal training and programming, ideally, should be personally tailored.

If that means "not doing the program", but doing something that gives me better results, so be it.

By the time a practitioner hits Simple, they probably have a sense for how different things are working for them.

If you want to achieve the simple standard in the quickest way while maximizing all the GPP benefits, I would tend to believe Pavel.

If Pavel was writing a custom program for me, and had access to all my training data and training history, had assessed my strengths and weaknesses, would he come up with exactly what he wrote for S&S?

I doubt it.

 

[Adachi]

As far as I know, hitting the Timed Simple standard does not require one to testify that S&S 'by the book' was the path taken to get there.

Even though this is true, I'm completely enamored of step loading in the program, and how closely my experience matched with the book when followed.

First two weeks I would naturally gravitate towards mostly 2 handed swings and getups would feel like a grind.
Second two weeks I would gravitate towards more 1 hand swings and would have to slow myself down in the getups to get the most out of it.

I feel like the S&S 2.0 structure pays huge dividends, as opposed to my secondary, and tertiary workarounds.

 

[Nacho]

@watchnerd I understand what you are saying. But the thing is, Im just a golfer/pool player with a few kettlebells at home with no interest or time to start going to gym, having a personal trainer to plan tailor made programs, learning new lifts etc... Im trying to milk everything I can from this one program I have learned to do and love doing. I plan to move to 36kg now and maintain that during next summer. Probably I will try something else next fall, since I dont like the idea of buying 40kg bell. Maybe rop then... I dont know... And that’s the thing, I really dont know! ?

 

[Kozushi]

Think if it was a barbell.

Intermediate and higher lifters don't train at their PRs / competition weights. 60-80% is the usual training range.

If a 32 kg Timeless Simple is your PR, that doesn't mean you have to train there every day, or even *should*.

Yes, thank you. It's sad that some people feel overwhelmed trying to continue every session of S&S with the 32kg, and burnout, and then give up on S&S. The 2.0 book makes it clear that it is fine to fall back a few bell levels when you need to.

 

[Kozushi]

I whole heartedly agree that one could hit the simple standard by other paths. But in the end, your not "doing the program"

I'm not the S&S police and I'm not nearly as smart as Pavel, but when Pavel recommends to use a linear step loaded progression for most novices to intermediates in many programs such as S&S, then I would tend to believe him.

Just sayin, I see a lot of people on here apparently not seeing or expecting results from the program as written and are looking for advice about mixing up S&S with waviness, pushups, pullups, presses, Zumba, Mexican hat dancing, etc. Unless you can find a person on here with the exact same experience, you are pretty much on your own.

If you want to achieve the simple standard in the quickest way while maximizing all the GPP benefits, I would tend to believe Pavel.

JMO

I agree, it's best to actually follow the 2.0 book. There were a number of things that were not yet known back when 1.0 was written prompting a lot of questions and debate on these forums in particular. Book 2.0 solves all those questions and problems.

 

[watchnerd]

@watchnerd I understand what you are saying. But the thing is, Im just a golfer/pool player with a few kettlebells at home with no interest or time to start going to gym, having a personal trainer to plan tailor made programs, learning new lifts etc... Im trying to milk everything I can from this one program I have learned to do and love doing. I plan to move to 36kg now and maintain that during next summer. Probably I will try something else next fall, since I dont like the idea of buying 40kg bell. Maybe rop then... I dont know... And that’s the thing, I really dont know! ?

Yeah, if that's the case, off the shelf can make sense.

Strength athletes (like me) can be off target compared to the general population, partly because strength athletes may have more familiarity with general S&C methods or self-programming.

But....I think it might be worth at least 1 session with a trainer to talk about what to do next after reaching Simple as programming often does better when it's individualized once you reach the Intermediate level.

Especially if you're asking yourself "I don't know".

 

[Kozushi]

Awesome! Sounds like you're making great progress. Just avoid the pitfall of adding in extra heavy sets before putting in the time. You may have days where you fell like you can handle more heavy sets than what your step progression allows, and you very well may do them, but you may pay later. Just keep with your progression, and if you have days where it feels too easy, just learn to appreciate them.


@Kozushi congrats on your enthusiasm for the program and finding a way that you can run the program, but I think Pavel recommends running S&S using a linear step-load progression. He does allow taking a light day once in a while to avoid totally skipping a workout. (If I went by feel, I wouldn't start/fininsh, most of my sessions)


I think the goal for the program was to reach the "TIMED" Simple standard. For example if a gentleman isn't capable of doing 5 sessions of "UNTIMED" sessions with the 32kg, how would he even begin to attempt a "TIMED" session with it to achieve the "TIMED" simple standard? In fact, in V2.0 Pavel updated the program to work up to 3-4 sessions a week with heavier bells (36-40kg), just to give you enough strength capacity to hit the simple standard. I believe the context of the "TIMELESS" simple was to graduate from the introductory portion of S&S to the second phase to actually meet the "TIMED" simple standard. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Good Luck!

Sorry, I kind of got caught up in my own words there.
Yes, one is to progress in a more of less linear fashion until TIMED SIMPLE. Once attained, it's about maintenance and listening to your body. The end of the 2.0 book has a perfectly clear summary of what you need to do to maintain it, and it is also quite clear on what you might do to try to go beyond it, namely either: 1. keep doing what you have been doing with your linear progression in weight 2. get into other kettlebell moves (snatches, presses, double cleans etc...) 3. get into barbell training. All three ways can lead back into going for Sinister later if you wish. However, Pavel makes clear that not everyone can get there and that it isn't necessary nor desirable for everyone to get there. Maintaining your S&S at the 32kg bell is perfectly fine!
Given that I'm in the "maintenance" phase of my S&S, and my above posts were written with "maintaining S&S" in mind, this is why I was putting an emphasis on maintaining Timeless Simple above all. I believe in "muscle memory" by the way, in a few different ways, but one way is where you never again lose the capacity to achieve the same strength results that you once did (within reason of course!) So these days with nothing to prove any longer, I'm happy to mainly do S&S with weights lighter than the 32kg. As long as I do S&S as often as possible with the 32kg and "stay in the game" I don't think I'm betraying the 2.0 plan. At least I _think_ this is a valid reading of the book. If it isn't please someone correct me!

I absolutely agree with some here who are pointing out that it's best not to bastardize S&S. An awful lot of research and testing was put into it with a huge amount of feedback over many years. I _think_ the 2.0 book is entirely complete and has all the answers.

 

[Deleted member 316]

For frequency I've read and heard 300 swings a week is the sweet spot and at three times a week you can still make progress on s&s. Less than three is pretty much maintenance. Which leads me to wonder why it's recommended to do s&s twice a week and pttp twice a week. Couldn't you do three sessions of each a week? Which could give you a full rest day. I like the two week alternating of s&s and pttp, but some find doing swings daily very boring and monotonous. So doing the three sessions of each a week hits the sweet spot and breaks up the monotony.

 

[watchnerd]

For frequency I've read and heard 300 swings a week is the sweet spot and at three times a week you can still make progress on s&s. Less than three is pretty much maintenance. Which leads me to wonder why it's recommended to do s&s twice a week and pttp twice a week. Couldn't you do three sessions of each a week? Which could give you a full rest day. I like the two week alternating of s&s and pttp, but some find doing swings daily very boring and monotonous. So doing the three sessions of each a week hits the sweet spot and breaks up the monotony.

Once past the novice phase of learning the 1H swing movement, I've made easy peasy swing progress doing as little as 100-200 swings a week when I'm also doing other hip hinge strength training (both ballistics and grinds).

Your body doesn't know if you're holding a kettlebell or something else when you're training the hinge movement pattern.

 

[watchnerd]

So these days with nothing to prove any longer, I'm happy to mainly do S&S with weights lighter than the 32kg.

People get a little obsessed with numbers.

There isn't some magic life changing fitness event that happens at 32 kg that you can't also get at 28 or 24, TBH, with appropriate programming.

I can measure velocity using my Push system -- it's a great reality check for how much power one is putting out at any given weight.

It's really easy to think "i'm swinging 32 kg, I must be putting out more power", but that's not necessarily true if your 32 kg swings are limp compared to your 28 kg or 24 kg swings.

Because of Newtonian laws as they apply to bodyweight inertia, some people will put out more power at a KB weight lighter than their max swing.

 

[Adachi]

Because of Newtonian laws as they apply to bodyweight inertia, some people will put out more power at a KB weight lighter than their max swing.

I had a thought related to this when I first tried a double kettlebell squat with my 32+24.

I was surprised at the reduced speed, compared my goblet squats with the 32.

That said I've noticed over time that the snap in my swing between the 24 and the 32 is becoming more more uniform.

And in the snatch the 24 had a very similar speed to the 16. But it's marginally slower and it's hard for me to notice without recording.

This all related to the discussion of bell selection in Q&D . The heavier weight is not always better for your programming.

So I puzzle a bit over the value proposition of longer slower grinder reps . But I do take them in small doses once or twice a week, it seems.

 

[watchnerd]

So I puzzle a bit over the value proposition of longer slower grinder reps . But I do take them in small doses once or twice a week, it seems.

This is an incredibly deep question that is hard to do justice to in the space of an internet post.

And, in fact, I would say I didn't really understand it until I read a book on the subject:

"Hypertrophy", by Chris Beardsley.

(yeah, it's 351 pages, I'm that much of an S&C nerd).

But the TLDR is:

All of which is to say:

Mechanical tension, induced by many different means, including going heavy, going powerful, greater ROM, and metabolic stress, drives hypertrophy. And to drive the most adaptations, you need to vary the stimulus to hit the greatest number of different muscle fibers to force them all to adapt, thus maximizing hypertrophy.

 

[Anna C]

I had a thought related to this when I first tried a double kettlebell squat with my 32+24.

I was surprised at the reduced speed, compared my goblet squats with the 32.

This isn't really demonstrating anything relative to this thread (S&S frequency and weight; power production). For grinds or strength movements like squats, a weight closer to your 1RM will just move more slowly.

Mechanical tension, induced by many different means, including going heavy, going powerful, greater ROM, and metabolic stress, drives hypertrophy. And to drive the most adaptations, you need to vary the stimulus to hit the greatest number of different muscle fibers to force them all to adapt, thus maximizing hypertrophy.

And this is great information... but I'll point out that S&S isn't a hypertrophy program.

 

[watchnerd]

And this is great information... but I'll point out that S&S isn't a hypertrophy program.

It may not be a hypertrophy program, but some hypertrophy certainly happens to most lifters somewhere along the journey.

I don't think all fo the strength gains are all neurological on the path to Simple and beyond, especially for those new to strength training.

 

[Anna C]

It may not be a hypertrophy program, but some hypertrophy certainly happens to most lifters somewhere along the journey.

I don't think all fo the strength gains are all neurological on the path to Simple and beyond, especially for those new to strength training.

True.. hypertrophy will happen with progression. I just wanted to point out that it isn't the direct objective of the program.

I see it this way -- With S&S, new muscle is sort of something that follows from doing the work -- like manual labor. The things you do to get there -- moving a heavy weight quickly and repeatedly with swings, and moving a heavy weight repeatedly through a range of movement patterns with the get-up, are more directly useful and applicable and transferrable to everyday things and general applications.

Whereas with hypertrophy programs, you do exercises specifically to build the muscle. Then you try to find something useful to do with it, or go about trying to learn new motor patterns that involve moving heavier things, moving things faster, moving things longer, moving things better and without injury, etc. S&S has all that build in as part of the program.

However, some people do benefit from going off the program and doing something more hypertrophy-focused for a while -- especially when pursuing Sinister. Because after all, more muscle does move more weight.

 

[Steve Freides]

If Pavel was writing a custom program for me, and had access to all my training data and training history, had assessed my strengths and weaknesses, would he come up with exactly what he wrote for S&S?

I doubt it.

Agreed. I confess to not having read all of this thread, but I think it bears mentioning that you're a successful competitive athlete in your sport. One program for "everyone" will, by definition, be more applicable to people the less specific their other athletic pursuits (if they have any at all).

-S-

 

[Kozushi]

People get a little obsessed with numbers.

There isn't some magic life changing fitness event that happens at 32 kg that you can't also get at 28 or 24, TBH, with appropriate programming.

I can measure velocity using my Push system -- it's a great reality check for how much power one is putting out at any given weight.

It's really easy to think "i'm swinging 32 kg, I must be putting out more power", but that's not necessarily true if your 32 kg swings are limp compared to your 28 kg or 24 kg swings.

Because of Newtonian laws as they apply to bodyweight inertia, some people will put out more power at a KB weight lighter than their max swing.

THANK YOU for your encouragement!

You know what you are talking about and I appreciate you telling me this!

 

[Kozushi]

People get a little obsessed with numbers.

There isn't some magic life changing fitness event that happens at 32 kg that you can't also get at 28 or 24, TBH, with appropriate programming.

I can measure velocity using my Push system -- it's a great reality check for how much power one is putting out at any given weight.

It's really easy to think "i'm swinging 32 kg, I must be putting out more power", but that's not necessarily true if your 32 kg swings are limp compared to your 28 kg or 24 kg swings.

Because of Newtonian laws as they apply to bodyweight inertia, some people will put out more power at a KB weight lighter than their max swing.

I value your opinion. Would you characterize S&S as being effectively a 1h swing programme with the TGUs "filling in the gaps" or would you see the swings and TGUs as being both about equal in importance?

 

[Kozushi]

I see it this way -- With S&S, new muscle is sort of something that follows from doing the work -- like manual labor. The things you do to get there -- moving a heavy weight quickly and repeatedly with swings, and moving a heavy weight repeatedly through a range of movement patterns with the get-up, are more directly useful and applicable and transferrable to everyday things and general applications.

Exactly why I favour S&S over everything else I've ever tried including bodyweight.