Kettlebell Sikastan view on kettlebells

[Starlord]

For both of you, I think I should rephrase my question: what quality does the 400lb bench signify, and are there other ways of assessing this other than the bench? Why has the bench become the "go to" for a lot of sports, other than it became a very popular movement that people like comparing? Do we know? In the shot putter example, the coach talked about how both with himself when he was an athlete and in throwers he coached, there was a fairly direct relationship between increasing bench and increasing distance thrown until around 400lbs, and then the amount of work it took to increase the bench was worth the negligible distance improvement (or sometimes regression). But is there such a direct carryover to other sports, such as football (position specific)? If not, then would incorporating other means of assessing be beneficial?

I'm assuming that due to being in a highly stable position you are able to exert maximum force into the barbell. Therefore develop the most amount of strength which can then the athlete can then learn to apply in his/her sports specific practices.

In regards to why the bench press has stood the test of time. My assumption is trial and error.

Over the years training techniques tend to funnel out and then back in. The things that work stand the test of time and the stuff that doesn't gets thrown out.

Then after a while people forget that some stuff doesn't work and that's why guys like Joel Seedman have a job.

 

[Starlord]

The value of the bench press (or any other exercise I guess) as an assessment, vs. their value as a builder of sport applicable strength are two different questions.

The bench press became the standard I'm guessing sometime in the 70s - it's easy to learn and build and it's not bad as a general assessment of upper body strength. Is it the end all be all? No, of course not. We could talk about barbell overhead/military pressing too if you'd prefer. Somehow all of this seems to be getting into the weeds.

I think as a test of upper body strength then I would still argue the bench presses superiority. As you can handle more weight and in extension you elicit more physiological changes.

Now if we changed it to the behind the neck jerk, then I would concede we have a superior method of demonstrating full body speed strength with an upper body focus.

Which is really popular amongst throwers. Who I'd argue are the most powerful athletes on the planet.

 

[John K]

The value of the bench press (or any other exercise I guess) as an assessment, vs. their value as a builder of sport applicable strength are two different questions.

The bench press became the standard I'm guessing sometime in the 70s - it's easy to learn and build and it's not bad as a general assessment of upper body strength. Is it the end all be all? No, of course not. We could talk about barbell overhead/military pressing too if you'd prefer. Somehow all of this seems to be getting into the weeds.

I'm assuming that due to being in a highly stable position you are able to exert maximum force into the barbell. Therefore develop the most amount of strength which can then the athlete can then learn to apply in his/her sports specific practices.

In regards to why the bench press has stood the test of time. My assumption is trial and error.

Over the years training techniques tend to funnel out and then back in. The things that work stand the test of time and the stuff that doesn't gets thrown out.

Then after a while people forget that some stuff doesn't work and that's why guys like Joel Seedman have a job.

You're both probably right. Sometimes I start thinking too much and then realize its better that I don't.

 

[Starlord]

Yep. Been there, done that. Push ups and the army go together like Gin and Tonic.

100%

The logic of why they became popular is very straight forward. Their bodyweight and the floor are always accessible.

 

[3letterslong]

I don't really have an opinion on the video other than at some times they say "high level strength and conditioning" and other times they say "good strength and conditioning" so I'm never quite sure what the parameters of their comments are. While I don't agree that kettlebells can be a stand-alone tool for professional athletes, I'm confident they can be a stand alone tool for everyone else.

Somewhat related, somewhat unrelated, I'm never sure if the people on youtube ever know WTF they're talking about when it comes to sports prep because they tend to universally criticize what the top sports trainers do. I'm at a higher level in my own industry and when I see youtube videos or video essays pertaining to my work it's always young guys right out of college (or even high school) who don't know much about the topic compared to the people they're criticizing, but want to create content on youtube. I strongly suspect that a LOT of fitness videos on youtube are of the same calibre.

 

[offwidth]

100%

The logic of why they became popular is very straight forward. Their bodyweight and the floor are always accessible.

Floors of all types, decks of boats, mud, snow, puddles, etc, etc…

 

[3letterslong]

Also, I was recently looking into sandbags and you can get sandbags that hold up to 400lbs of sand, so I'm excited to add some sandbags to my life towards 2023.

 

[North Coast Miller]

For both of you, I think I should rephrase my question: what quality does the 400lb bench signify, and are there other ways of assessing this other than the bench? Why has the bench become the "go to" for a lot of sports, other than it became a very popular movement that people like comparing? Do we know? In the shot putter example, the coach talked about how both with himself when he was an athlete and in throwers he coached, there was a fairly direct relationship between increasing bench and increasing distance thrown until around 400lbs, and then the amount of work it took to increase the bench was worth the negligible distance improvement (or sometimes regression). But is there such a direct carryover to other sports, such as football (position specific)? If not, then would incorporating other means of assessing be beneficial?

Personally I'd think depending on the specific sport there absolutely HAS to be better metrics. One thing a high BP definitely demonstrates is that the subject has ready access to standardized gym equipment and uses it. The other thing it signifies is the subject is probably 200lbs minimum and most likely a good bit heavier.

I'd be very surprised if many NFL cornerbacks or even safeties could bench 400. "Sorry, you're off the roster".

 

[TimothyGander]

If it does then why aren't more rugby teams and throwers doing that instead of benching?

I'd venture a suggestion that they're not doing that because... they're not doing that. Have you ever worked for a large company or government agency and tried to suggest a major change to some process of that institution? In sports there is probably even more bias on conservatism in these matters - some new supposedly revolutionary concept appears every week, most of these aren't worth much, and elite athletes and their coaches don't have the time or energy to sift through this mess in a hope of finding something that actually works better. Even more importantly, there isn't an incentive for anyone to actually stick their necks out for something (like kettlebells) that maybe would somewhat improve performance and risk being blamed (rightly or wrongly) if the performance turns out to be lackluster.

I'm also very sure (although not 100% sure) that kettlebells have been around in russian/baltic nations longer than the barbell has.

So if the kettlebell was in everyway the equal to the barbell in a high level SnC setting then why did the USSR for the most part (excluding sports where the barbell is a necessity e.g. weightlifting and powerlifting) opt to use the barbell as their primary tool?

I'm not sure about that. Although in his RKC days Pavel did build up a mystique around ancient origins of the kettlebell, and the implement itself might be known in Russia for a longer time than barbells, I think it's pretty clear that most of the hardstyle methodology was actually developed by Pavel after his arrival in the United States, that is, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Since there were two strength and power based barbell sports that were applicable to high level S&C, while there was nothing of the kind that used kettlebells (GS being a mostly aerobic, strength-endurance sport). If Pavel was born earlier, or someone else came up with hardstyle-like methodology for maximum strength and power training with kettlebells, things may have been different.

 

[John K]

Personally I'd think depending on the specific sport there absolutely HAS to be better metrics. One thing a high BP definitely demonstrates is that the subject has ready access to standardized gym equipment and uses it. The other thing it signifies is the subject is probably 200lbs minimum and most likely a good bit heavier.

I'd be very surprised if many NFL cornerbacks or even safeties could bench 400. "Sorry, you're off the roster".

Yes, that was partly what I was thinking - with perhaps a few exceptions, a lot of the tests or standards do not directly carry over to the sport but serve as proxies to indicating that this individual is either gifted, well trained, or both. Sticking with bench and football, there was one NFL cornerback named Fred Smoot who benched 225 for one rep in the combine, but it didn't prevent him from being drafted and playing 8 years. Clearly, there are other tests that are better assessments for a cornerback (and is why the combine has multiple tests and not just a single test) - and the barbell may not be all that necessary for training one either.

None of this says a barbell is inferior or a kettlebell superior, but depending on the sport (and potentially position within that sport), the barbell can be interchanged with "strength training" and the goals still be met.

 

[bluejeff]

Very interesting debate/discussion!

I'm not familiar with these guys so take what I have to say with a grain of salt . . . but it felt like at some points in the video they were moving the goalpost a bit. Numerous times they stated that "what people are really asking is if they can design all their training around kettlebells, maces, etc...."

Well....Yes they can. But what's the intended goal being discussed?

Then they seem to try to tear down KB training as dogmatic while espousing the barbell as best, without (please timestamp since I seem to have missed it) ever saying "for elite athletes" or even really specifying what kind of conditioning it is best for. The video seemed kind of vague to me to be honest.

I can't argue with the fact that the barbell can be easily loaded to very high weights. That's why I got a set.


I might be splitting hairs or derailing a bit here but these are some interesting things I saw pop up in this thread:

Loaded pushups are equal or superior to bench - full anterior chain activation with a closed chain movement, bench is open chain movement and pairs lower posterior chain activation with a push, something the body will almost never do in a dynamic setting.

I agree here.

Definitely disagree with this one. In the British military the biggest cause of non deployment status is due to shoulder injuries and that it due to massive volume of push ups.

When the shoulder isn't pinned back it leaves one prone to shoulder and rotator cuff injuries.

When the scapula hugs the ribcage well, can move freely and coordinates well with the movement of the humerus there is less chance of rotator cuff injury. Never anywhere outside of bench pressing do you immobilize your scapula when you move your arm. This is all pretty well documented. In the BP the safest thing to do is immobilize the scaps. Outside of that.... I can't think of another situation where you do. I'm not knocking BP but i think folks who bench need stuff that trains scapular motion in their routine, upward rotation and protraction, specifically. Pushups naturally train that, if properly done, as per:

PU also allows for greater shoulder mobility and greater ROM at lockout because. It also frees the hands to adopt however much rotation is needed to increase room at the shoulder joint.

Push ups being the standard physical punishment for decades. Push ups being used in PT.

It has never made sense to me to punish those you want to become strong by exposing them to overuse injuries.

Since I think it might be fair to say that volume seems to take precedence over technique in the case of the military, I will venture this "guess": the reaching muscles (serratus, lower traps, etc all the muscles that rotate the scaps) never get properly trained and thus fatigue faster than the big, prime movers such as the delts and pecs. Once the reaching muscles fatigue, scapulohumeral rhythm ceases to function well and then you end up with joint injuries, especially as the volume increases. If the shoulder moves the way it is structured, and training volume does not exceed recovery, there should (in theory and in my experience) be far less injury.

Side side note: I will also venture that more crawling and rocking pushups (and variations of the two) may translate better to military conditioning. Linear/standard pushups are better for power but crawling and rocking are far superior for full body (and shoulder) stability and would likely translate well to maneuvering around, under and through obstacles. They can be loaded very easily, even with a pack.

Barbell for max strength and size, other things for everything else imo.

Ok that's my two cents here

 

[Starlord]

I'd venture a suggestion that they're not doing that because... they're not doing that. Have you ever worked for a large company or government agency and tried to suggest a major change to some process of that institution? In sports there is probably even more bias on conservatism in these matters - some new supposedly revolutionary concept appears every week, most of these aren't worth much, and elite athletes and their coaches don't have the time or energy to sift through this mess in a hope of finding something that actually works better. Even more importantly, there isn't an incentive for anyone to actually stick their necks out for something (like kettlebells) that maybe would somewhat improve performance and risk being blamed (rightly or wrongly) if the performance turns out to be lackluster.

I know that is definitely true for government but would argue that it is not the case with sports science.

Maybe more so now that they have dropped things like stability work and altitude masks. As well as other gimmicks.

In the military setting our PT is decades behind the sports performance world. Which is better than it used to be, but still very far behind.

Elements of sports performance is being used in the military and corporate world to a high degree of success.

The sports performance world doesn't have a centralised source of power. So what has survived and is commonly used surely has to be the best methods.

The whole point is sports performance. So the only thing that is important is producing the best end result.

I'm not sure about that. Although in his RKC days Pavel did build up a mystique around ancient origins of the kettlebell, and the implement itself might be known in Russia for a longer time than barbells, I think it's pretty clear that most of the hardstyle methodology was actually developed by Pavel after his arrival in the United States, that is, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Since there were two strength and power based barbell sports that were applicable to high level S&C, while there was nothing of the kind that used kettlebells (GS being a mostly aerobic, strength-endurance sport). If Pavel was born earlier, or someone else came up with hardstyle-like methodology for maximum strength and power training with kettlebells, things may have been different.

If this is true and the kettlebell is the barbells equal then why wasn't the kettlebell used as the primary strength tool by the USSR?

They experimented with an array of tools during the time of the USSR including kettlebells.

The whole world uses USSR sports performance research as the basis of their SnC. So why didn't the USSR use it as their primary tool for high level SnC? Then in extension the rest of the world when they started adopting and manipulating USSR methodologies?

So to circle this back round to the Sika video. Kettlebells are a useful tool and addition but the barbell is still king for high level SnC.

 

[Starlord]

Very interesting debate/discussion!

I'm not familiar with these guys so take what I have to say with a grain of salt . . . but it felt like at some points in the video they were moving the goalpost a bit. Numerous times they stated that "what people are really asking is if they can design all their training around kettlebells, maces, etc...."

As they mentioned, they have received this questions and questions like this in the comments. So what they are doing is addressing those comments.

Well....Yes they can. But what's the intended goal being discussed?

High level SnC for athletes. They mentioned that.

Then they seem to try to tear down KB training as dogmatic while espousing the barbell as best, without (please timestamp since I seem to have missed it) ever saying "for elite athletes" or even really specifying what kind of conditioning it is best for. The video seemed kind of vague to me to be honest.

High level SnC for athletes was mentioned numerous times.

I can't argue with the fact that the barbell can be easily loaded to very high weights. That's why I got a set.

I might be splitting hairs or derailing a bit here but these are some interesting things I saw pop up in this thread:

I agree here.

When the scapula hugs the ribcage well, can move freely and coordinates well with the movement of the humerus there is less chance of rotator cuff injury. Never anywhere outside of bench pressing do you immobilize your scapula when you move your arm. This is all pretty well documented. In the BP the safest thing to do is immobilize the scaps. Outside of that.... I can't think of another situation where you do. I'm not knocking BP but i think folks who bench need stuff that trains scapular motion in their routine, upward rotation and protraction, specifically. Pushups naturally train that, if properly done, as per:

Except for the fact that the anterior delt traveling beyond the pec is what exposes the shoulder and rotator cuff to forces beyond that of the pec. Which is the bigger, stronger muscle group.

Try benching with full shoulder mobility like you would in the push up and you will quickly attend "snap city."

The reason why the barbell is king because we can load the athlete to the highest degree and then have then express maximum strength.

The athlete then learns to apply that in their sports specific training.

It has never made sense to me to punish those you want to become strong by exposing them to overuse injuries.

Since I think it might be fair to say that volume seems to take precedence over technique in the case of the military, I will venture this "guess": the reaching muscles (serratus, lower traps, etc all the muscles that rotate the scaps) never get properly trained and thus fatigue faster than the big, prime movers such as the delts and pecs. Once the reaching muscles fatigue, scapulohumeral rhythm ceases to function well and then you end up with joint injuries, especially as the volume increases. If the shoulder moves the way it is structured, and training volume does not exceed recovery, there should (in theory and in my experience) be far less injury.

Completely disagree. Just adding push ups doesn't constitute as "working" the rear delts, traps, rhomboids etc.

This is where we have to remember the specific context of this video. High level SnC, not people who just want general exercise for health and fitness. Using minimalist programming.

These are people looking to express maximum strength and power, within the context of their sport.

So if you bench Press 180kg at sub 90kg as an example, then you have to be doing pull ups, pulls downs, rows and rear delt work. I know this because it's what I needed to do to acheive my 180kg bench.

This is actually working the traps, rhomboids, rear delts etc.

Just because my arms move when I sprint doesn't mean I'm working my arms. Unless I use a very low bar when I using that term.

Side side note: I will also venture that more crawling and rocking pushups (and variations of the two) may translate better to military conditioning. Linear/standard pushups are better for power but crawling and rocking are far superior for full body (and shoulder) stability and would likely translate well to maneuvering around, under and through obstacles. They can be loaded very easily, even with a pack.

Leopard crawls are another common punishment in a military setting as well. You will get used to leopard crawling in and out of full kit.

As well as it being common in PT sessions as well.

Barbell for max strength and size, other things for everything else imo.

Ok that's my two cents here

100% and this circles back to their point. The barbell is your meat and potatoes for high level SnC. All other tools are used strategically to plug the gaps in barbell training (which there are a lot of).

 

[offwidth]

These are people looking to express maximum strength and power, within the context of their sport.

Open question…

There are a lot of different sports out there… are there sports where the barbell is not ‘king’ for strength and conditioning?

We tend in these conversations to usually bring up examples of TV Sports.

 

[Hung]

There are a lot of different sports out there… are there sports where the barbell is not ‘king’ for strength and conditioning?

football/soccer I think?

 

[Steve Freides]

Sometimes long threads here are a result of a "controversial" point of view or definition of a poorly defined term or subject. I think "high level strength and conditioning" falls into that category.

-S-

 

[offwidth]

Sometimes long threads here are a result of a "controversial" point of view or definition of a poorly defined term or subject. I think "high level strength and conditioning" falls into that category.

-S-

Awww come on Steve… we are only 3 pages in on this one. ADS is 9 pages and counting…
(and we had one on what pants to wear or not to wear that was 7 pages long…)

 

[bluejeff]

Since I think it might be fair to say that volume seems to take precedence over technique in the case of the military, I will venture this "guess": the reaching muscles (serratus, lower traps, etc all the muscles that rotate the scaps) never get properly trained and thus fatigue faster than the big, prime movers such as the delts and pecs. Once the reaching muscles fatigue, scapulohumeral rhythm ceases to function well and then you end up with joint injuries, especially as the volume increases. If the shoulder moves the way it is structured, and training volume does not exceed recovery, there should (in theory and in my experience) be far less injury.

Completely disagree. Just adding push ups doesn't constitute as "working" the rear delts, traps, rhomboids etc.

Perhaps you misunderstood my point here. My point was to provide an explanation for why high volumes of pushups (especially if used as "punishment") may lead to injury if supporting muscles are not well enough trained, which they usually are in many people.

So if you bench Press 180kg at sub 90kg as an example, then you have to be doing pull ups, pulls downs, rows and rear delt work. I know this because it's what I needed to do to acheive my 180kg bench.

This is actually working the traps, rhomboids, rear delts etc.

Just because my arms move when I sprint doesn't mean I'm working my arms. Unless I use a very low bar when I using that term.

I agree that to strengthen and grow those muscles they have to be worked in that way. To coordinate them for a healthy pressing motion is something different. I wasn't referring to unloaded arm swing; I was referring to "real life" motions where the arm has to push, pull, and lift. Does the aformentioned rugby player "pack" his shoulder before using the stiff arm to fend off another player? How about boxers? The serratus muscle is commonly referred to as the "boxer's muscle." It's also easy to explain how the cue we sometimes hear, "shoulders down and back" creates less subacromial space than a scapula that is allowed to rotate freely.

the fact that the anterior delt traveling beyond the pec is what exposes the shoulder and rotator cuff to forces beyond that of the pec. Which is the bigger, stronger muscle group.

Try benching with full shoulder mobility like you would in the push up and you will quickly attend "snap city."

When the head of the humerus travels farther forward than the scapula it can irritate/damage the labrum, and presses on structures like the rotator cuff and biceps tendon. Which is why when the scapula travels with the humerus this doesn't happen. Your anterior delt travels farther forward than the pec all the time. An immobile scap is also well documented as a cause for impingement issues, whether superior or anterior. I suppose that a healthy BP gets around this issue by shortening the range of motion, but again... that's not how the body is "designed" to move. I also should have better highlighted than the BP is a different movement. I tried. . .

In the BP the safest thing to do is immobilize the scaps.

I get that the scaps are pinned back in the BP, and I get the reason for it. I also agree that it's the pressing motion that allows for the greatest loading, unless we get further into semantics All I was saying is that if BP is trained, then it's probably a good idea to train other, supplementary movements to keep healthy scapulohumeral rhythm working right in the rest of life.

Sometimes long threads here are a result of a "controversial" point of view or definition of a poorly defined term or subject. I think "high level strength and conditioning" falls into that category.

-S-

Completey agree here.

 

[Starlord]

Open question…

There are a lot of different sports out there… are there sports where the barbell is not ‘king’ for strength and conditioning?

We tend in these conversations to usually bring up examples of TV Sports.

I would say endurance running sports.

 

[Don Fairbanks]

IMO, 5 x 5 bb work would be great for an endurance running athlete.

One answer to the @offwidth question would be gymnastics, although I have never trained a high level gymnast.