Kettlebell Sikastan view on kettlebells

[John K]

However, what is not highlighted is the portability of these implements. ... I am usually running a specific program with a certain weight and I don't need to lug around the entire set of kettlebells with me. This makes it very convenient. Important rules of habit formation is to make it as easy as possible. ... I've trained barbell but I always had to go to the gym and the moment I had something else happen in life I would have to sacrifice my training because the time investment to go to the gym and get back suddenly starts looking very expensive.

This is definitely a huge benefit to kettlebells, and one that has really helped me - as long as I am driving, I can throw in one or two bells. I think the pushback here is that "high level SnC" this will be less of an issue - although depending on the sport, the stage of life, etc. this could become more of an issue. Not every person engaged in "high level SnC" is a full-time professional athlete with an amazing facility to train at. (And that gets back to my problem with the broadness of "high level SnC" - we could be talking about training the Green Bay Packers, or we could be talking about training someone to win the Barkley.)

But try playing rugby without spending time under the barbell. I don't know any respectable team that does.

I'm assuming if A&A programming would work better than many of them would be doing that.

I think these are bad arguments. I don't want to limit it to rugby, any/all sports is fine. But the absence of kettlebelling does not mean that kettlebelling doesn't work unless you can at least find an example that shows a team implemented it (intelligently) and they did awful and that awfulness was primarily attributed to their physical training. This isn't about being "scientific" or doing a "study." You can look at say the NFL team the Titans in 2014 - they won 2/lost 14 games that season. If they had had a good record prior and if they had just implemented kettlebells as primary, then it sure would look bad for the bells. As is, it was the first year with their new head coach. We can obviously talk about the pros and cons of using kettlebells (as we have been doing), but its a very weak argument to say if they did work people would be using them.

And at least with team sports, the SnC coach is tied to the head coach, and he has to sell the training to the head coach (coach buy in) and then to the athletes (athlete buy in). Now some head coaches might give more leeway and others less, but your job is tied to the teams performance. Are you willing to take a shot and lose your job trying something new? Is the head coach? Is there a motive to innovate - if barbells have been the standard and have worked, why do something different without a good reason? What could you gain with kettlebells that you can't do with the tried-and-true barbell, and is that gain worth risking the careers of at least some of the coaching staff? Shoot it was a hard road to get a lot of sports teams to start lifting weights, let alone lifting them in a way to stimulate strength. It took someone being willing to implement something radical and dominating that made other teams start trying it too.

 

[Benjamin Renaud]

I'm wondering in what way would a barbell be superior to kettlebells with regards to conditioning? For absolute strength I can understand, but for conditioning... I might be ingnorant in this regard though.

I also find that they don't credit kettlebells to their just value with regards to complexes and such. One can build strength and conditioning with kettlebells at the same time. Maybe not the same amount of strength that you'd get from a barbell but still.

They mostly talk about assistance drills with kettlebells, overhead carries, bottoms up carries and presses, unilateral exercises etc. No talk about double kettlebell work and building work capacity with those.

Makes me wonder if they've tried everything the kettlebell has to offer.

 

[kurt perham]

Only a few minutes in and agree with general premis so far, but the fact these implements are not aligned with gravity doesn't really mean they are outside our center of mass. Eg swing a kettlebell. Now take same kettlebell and hold at arms length - that is "outside" center of mass, when its swinging the force is resisted in a line opposite the direction the load is traveling - bracing. Huge difference.

Also, what is "S&C" in an absolute sense? and there are a lot of ways to train with anything. I'd bet a half dozen mortgage payments I could get someone in great shape with a pile of rocks and a stack of logs.

true dat.

 

[Steve Freides]

I'm wondering in what way would a barbell be superior to kettlebells with regards to conditioning?

I'm wondering how one does "conditioning" with a barbell. What is conditioning?

My personal goals are to be strong and healthy - "conditioning" doesn't enter into it. Strong is resistance training. Conditioning to me translates as aerobically healthy, aerobic exercise being on the opposite end of the continuum from strength, conditioning meaning I can do something non-sedentary but also not difficult and do it for a long time. My strength raises the level of what's "not difficult ... to do for a long time." And the only reason "conditioning" translates to aerobically fit is that my goals are to be strong and healthy. Kettlebell ballistics occupy a unique place in the middle of the continuum that gives me benefits at both ends, and it's the ends of the continuum I really want.

To reiterate my earlier point, we're having a discussion about how to go about achieving ends that aren't well defined and likely can't be in a discussion of this nature except as they apply to specific people, specific goals, specific sports, specific occupations, and the like.

-S-

 

[John K]

To reiterate my earlier point, we're having a discussion about how to go about achieving ends that aren't well defined and likely can't be in a discussion of this nature except as they apply to specific people, specific goals, specific sports, specific occupations, and the like.

To paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel, "Hello vagueness my old friend, I've come to talk with you again."

 

[Boris Bachmann]

The whole this or that argument is kinda silly. I think I said this earlier in the thread - outside of a few kettlebell purists, NO ONE is arguing anymore that kettlebells, and only kettlebells, is the way to go for all things at all levels, so I don't really understand the point of the video in the first place (except to stir up controversy and views). I guess there is some push back even still in the S&C community to kettlebells and part out that probably stems from the initial ad copy and fervor screaming that KBs were ALL YOU NEED.

When I became an RKC in 2007, I literally offered to get a full set of kettlebells for our high school at my own expense so our sports teams could use them. I was told no. It took a decade, but lo and behold our school weight room has finally adopted them into the programs (to what extent, I don't know as I'm not coaching in the district anymore). Today, I'm guessing the number of large weight rooms/S&C facilities with kettlebells probably outnumbers those without.

Barbells (and kettlebells) have earned their place in the S&C world and I don't see either one going anywhere anytime soon. Which one's better arguments are kinda like the which kung-fu is better argument - entertaining, but I don't know how useful it is.

 

[Benjamin Renaud]

To reiterate my earlier point, we're having a discussion about how to go about achieving ends that aren't well defined and likely can't be in a discussion of this nature except as they apply to specific people, specific goals, specific sports, specific occupations, and the like.

Exactly, I think their whole video about S&C and the tools to get there lacks depth and details. You must first define what strength is and what conditioning is before you can make assumptions as to what tools are better to get you there. In the specific context of each individual looking at using said tools.

A barbell won't be as useful for a marathon runner or rock climber as it would be for a football player. The kind of strength and where you want that strength (arms, finger, glutes, back etc) will be specific to each individual and their goals. Same goes for conditioning.

They conclude that a barbell is better than a set of kettlebells for high level S&C. I say that it all depends on your goals and objectives and can't be as clear cut as they seem to make it. One could argue that a good bicycle is better than a barbell for conditioning. Hell a good pair of running shoes is also better. They should have made the case that a barbell is better for absolute strength than KBs and leave conditioning out, whatever conditioning is.

 

[Oaks]

Interesting but somewhat frustrating (to me) discussion.

Kettlebell ballistics occupy a unique place in the middle of the continuum that gives me benefits at both ends, and it's the ends of the continuum I really want.

-S-

^^This is an important point and to me one reason KBs bring so much value to non-elite athletes and those in search of GPP, whatever that may mean to a given athlete. Multiple ends can be pursued simultaneously with great success. In other words, the strength AND conditioning birds can be targeted with the same stone.

With regards to "high-level S&C," whatever that may mean for a given (presumably, elite) athlete, I imagine "strength" and "conditioning" are better trained separately, as @Steve Freides alluded to above. In other words, sport-specific strength and sport-specific conditioning would be better targeted separately.

Depending on the sport and the athlete, limit strength, explosiveness, strength endurance, endurance, etc., may be the highest value target. To my mind, all of these attributes exist in tension, and at some point serving one master will come at the expense of one or more of the others. For this reason, among others, you don't see powerlifters or strongmen at the pointy end of locomotive endurance competition, or vice versa. Also for this reason, among others, I disagree with the notion that there is never a point at which "more maximal strength wouldn't be beneficial" for a rugby, NFL, etc., athlete. At some point, the athlete is "strong enough" for his or her role (like the 400 lb bench for throwers mentioned above). At some point, increasing limit strength will erode the other attributes to such a degree that the athlete will no longer be competitive in his or her sport. For example, if the athlete can squat 800 lbs for reps, but can't make it up and down the field effectively, the athlete's value is at best limited.

Limit strength is probably best, or at least most conveniently, served by the barbell. Perhaps explosiveness is too. That doesn't necessarily preclude an athlete from getting "strong enough" via other means, and it doesn't mean the barbell is the best means to train S&C, high-level or otherwise, for every athlete.

 

[TimothyGander]

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.

I think it's primarily because there already were already developed (and continuously improved) effective methods of training for weightlifting and powerlifting. Adapting already existent protocols is far easier and time-efficient than developing a completely new system of training from scratch. After all, it did take at least 20 years (if we assume the RKC book from 2001 as a starting point) to develop Pavel's system and arguably it still has ways to go. So again, it's the age old problem: do you use a method that is already proven to work well enough, or do you use scarce time, energy and resources to try and invent (with a possibility of complete failure) something new and better? It seems that the former will almost always prevail, especially if the whole issue concerns just one of many factors involved in performance.

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

First of all, in USSR both organized sports and sports science were a part of government. And this is still the case in many countries today. Secondly, I would argue it's more of less true of any large institution with internally dispersed power. In such an institution most people will prioritize avoiding responsibility, and this is best done according to any combination of the following rules: do what everyone else is doing, do what has always been done, do what's considered to be the standard of conduct. If a hypothetical strength coach uses barbells, then even a bad performance by the athlete/team might be blamed on other factors. But if he decides to replace standard S&C with kettlebells, success MAY get him some credit, but a failure WILL be squarely placed on him, which may result in a job loss and a destroyed reputation. Even if he cares enough to try, it isn't his decision only - and everyone of the usually large number of people involved has the same incentive to avoid taking responsibility for failure.

When I became an RKC in 2007, I literally offered to get a full set of kettlebells for our high school at my own expense so our sports teams could use them. I was told no. It took a decade

How do you explain such an anecdote? They could literally try the kettlebells for free and had a friendly kettlebell instructor. If the performance was the most important factor, they would surely jump at the opportunity to experiment with something that might result in a competitive edge. However, if I'm right, it makes sense - nobody wanted to be held responsible if the KBs turned out to not be so useful or even harmful. So they waited until KBs became "normal" enough.

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

This could further strenghten the status quo bias I describe above. If there were previous recent attempts on changing the training, and they turned out to be gimmicks, why would anyone believe hardstyle kettlebell training is any different?

 

[Starlord]

This is definitely a huge benefit to kettlebells, and one that has really helped me - as long as I am driving, I can throw in one or two bells. I think the pushback here is that "high level SnC" this will be less of an issue - although depending on the sport, the stage of life, etc. this could become more of an issue. Not every person engaged in "high level SnC" is a full-time professional athlete with an amazing facility to train at. (And that gets back to my problem with the broadness of "high level SnC" - we could be talking about training the Green Bay Packers, or we could be talking about training someone to win the Barkley.)


I think these are bad arguments. I don't want to limit it to rugby, any/all sports is fine. But the absence of kettlebelling does not mean that kettlebelling doesn't work unless you can at least find an example that shows a team implemented it (intelligently) and they did awful and that awfulness was primarily attributed to their physical training. This isn't about being "scientific" or doing a "study." You can look at say the NFL team the Titans in 2014 - they won 2/lost 14 games that season. If they had had a good record prior and if they had just implemented kettlebells as primary, then it sure would look bad for the bells. As is, it was the first year with their new head coach. We can obviously talk about the pros and cons of using kettlebells (as we have been doing), but its a very weak argument to say if they did work people would be using them.

And at least with team sports, the SnC coach is tied to the head coach, and he has to sell the training to the head coach (coach buy in) and then to the athletes (athlete buy in). Now some head coaches might give more leeway and others less, but your job is tied to the teams performance. Are you willing to take a shot and lose your job trying something new? Is the head coach? Is there a motive to innovate - if barbells have been the standard and have worked, why do something different without a good reason? What could you gain with kettlebells that you can't do with the tried-and-true barbell, and is that gain worth risking the careers of at least some of the coaching staff? Shoot it was a hard road to get a lot of sports teams to start lifting weights, let alone lifting them in a way to stimulate strength. It took someone being willing to implement something radical and dominating that made other teams start trying it too.

Now I just feel like you are reaching too hard now.

As Pavel has said many times on the JRE. The barbells success in high level SnC is imperical.

If the USSR who were the kings of sports science felt the kettlebell was superior then why didn't they use them as the primary strength tool for all sports barring those where they use a barbell as part of the sport?

It's not like the USSR didn’t run these experiments. Coaches used them and over time the kettlebell was dropped as the MAIN strength tool for SnC for the barbell.

We aren't discounting the kettlebells usefulness. The video and conversation has been very clear thus far. They are a useful tool, but the barbell is king.

 

[Starlord]

I think it's primarily because there already were already developed (and continuously improved) effective methods of training for weightlifting and powerlifting. Adapting already existent protocols is far easier and time-efficient than developing a completely new system of training from scratch. After all, it did take at least 20 years (if we assume the RKC book from 2001 as a starting point) to develop Pavel's system and arguably it still has ways to go. So again, it's the age old problem: do you use a method that is already proven to work well enough, or do you use scarce time, energy and resources to try and invent (with a possibility of complete failure) something new and better? It seems that the former will almost always prevail, especially if the whole issue concerns just one of many factors involved in performance.

Because kettlebells existed long before weightlifting and powerlifting training systems in Russia. The Russians had their own methodologies on how to train with kettlebells long before they developed weightlifting training systems.

Pavel introduced kettlebells to the west and simplified USSR sports science systems that regular coaches tried to guard and over complicate.

That's where Pavel's work was so impactful. By making this information easily accessible and understandable.

First of all, in USSR both organized sports and sports science were a part of government. And this is still the case in many countries today. Secondly, I would argue it's more of less true of any large institution with internally dispersed power. In such an institution most people will prioritize avoiding responsibility, and this is best done according to any combination of the following rules: do what everyone else is doing, do what has always been done, do what's considered to be the standard of conduct. If a hypothetical strength coach uses barbells, then even a bad performance by the athlete/team might be blamed on other factors. But if he decides to replace standard S&C with kettlebells, success MAY get him some credit, but a failure WILL be squarely placed on him, which may result in a job loss and a destroyed reputation. Even if he cares enough to try, it isn't his decision only - and everyone of the usually large number of people involved has the same incentive to avoid taking responsibility for failure.

But USSR sports science was decentralised. Unless you understand how they were run there isn't any point discussing this further.

Dave Miller at Garage Strength has a good video that explains the decentralised nature of USSR sports science and coaching for various fields. I'd encourage you to watch it.

How do you explain such an anecdote? They could literally try the kettlebells for free and had a friendly kettlebell instructor. If the performance was the most important factor, they would surely jump at the opportunity to experiment with something that might result in a competitive edge. However, if I'm right, it makes sense - nobody wanted to be held responsible if the KBs turned out to not be so useful or even harmful. So they waited until KBs became "normal" enough.

That's what I am saying. They have and the kettlebell was not an adequate replacement for the barbell as the primary strength tool for SnC.

A useful tool but the barbell is still king.

This could further strenghten the status quo bias I describe above. If there were previous recent attempts on changing the training, and they turned out to be gimmicks, why would anyone believe hardstyle kettlebell training is any different?

I would argue the opposite. The sports performance world is always on the look out for that extra 1%.

Things that don't work get dropped and fast.

 

[TimothyGander]

I think these are bad arguments. I don't want to limit it to rugby, any/all sports is fine. But the absence of kettlebelling does not mean that kettlebelling doesn't work unless you can at least find an example that shows a team implemented it (intelligently) and they did awful and that awfulness was primarily attributed to their physical training. This isn't about being "scientific" or doing a "study." You can look at say the NFL team the Titans in 2014 - they won 2/lost 14 games that season. If they had had a good record prior and if they had just implemented kettlebells as primary, then it sure would look bad for the bells. As is, it was the first year with their new head coach. We can obviously talk about the pros and cons of using kettlebells (as we have been doing), but its a very weak argument to say if they did work people would be using them.

And at least with team sports, the SnC coach is tied to the head coach, and he has to sell the training to the head coach (coach buy in) and then to the athletes (athlete buy in). Now some head coaches might give more leeway and others less, but your job is tied to the teams performance. Are you willing to take a shot and lose your job trying something new? Is the head coach? Is there a motive to innovate - if barbells have been the standard and have worked, why do something different without a good reason? What could you gain with kettlebells that you can't do with the tried-and-true barbell, and is that gain worth risking the careers of at least some of the coaching staff? Shoot it was a hard road to get a lot of sports teams to start lifting weights, let alone lifting them in a way to stimulate strength. It took someone being willing to implement something radical and dominating that made other teams start trying it too.

Exactly what I've meant, especially the second paragraph. You put in in words better than me.

 

[Starlord]

The whole this or that argument is kinda silly. I think I said this earlier in the thread - outside of a few kettlebell purists, NO ONE is arguing anymore that kettlebells, and only kettlebells, is the way to go for all things at all levels, so I don't really understand the point of the video in the first place (except to stir up controversy and views). I guess there is some push back even still in the S&C community to kettlebells and part out that probably stems from the initial ad copy and fervor screaming that KBs were ALL YOU NEED.

When I became an RKC in 2007, I literally offered to get a full set of kettlebells for our high school at my own expense so our sports teams could use them. I was told no. It took a decade, but lo and behold our school weight room has finally adopted them into the programs (to what extent, I don't know as I'm not coaching in the district anymore). Today, I'm guessing the number of large weight rooms/S&C facilities with kettlebells probably outnumbers those without.

Barbells (and kettlebells) have earned their place in the S&C world and I don't see either one going anywhere anytime soon. Which one's better arguments are kinda like the which kung-fu is better argument - entertaining, but I don't know how useful it is.

I don't think you've paid much attention to the video.

They clearly said numerous times that this question and many questions regarding kettlebells have been asked.

Hence the purpose of the video. They never said kettlebells were bad. They said they were useful for high level SnC and good for general exercise.

This is not an either or, all or nothing video.

 

[Boris Bachmann]

I don't think you've paid much attention to the video.

They clearly said numerous times that this question and many questions regarding kettlebells have been asked.

Hence the purpose of the video. They never said kettlebells were bad. They said they were useful for high level SnC and good for general exercise.

This is not an either or, all or nothing video.

I paid attention to the video. I don't know why you seem defensive about it. I think it's kind of a fluff video - apparently you don't and that's probably the only thing in this thread we seem to differ in opinion about.

 

[TimothyGander]

That's where Pavel's work was so impactful. By making this information easily accessible and understandable.

This is where I disagree. If you read Pavel's kettlebell books chronologically there's a clear evolution of his views and recommendations. Even just comparing swing form demonstrated in RKC, ETK, ES and S&S is very instructive. Pavel's work may be somewhat based on Soviet research, but the actual hardstyle method seems to have been developed by himself after his arrival in the US. In other words, I don't think anyone was actually training Pavel's way in the Soviet Union, and so there was no way for Soviet coaches to experiment with something that has not yet existed. What did exist was GS, a completely different sport based primarily on aerobic endurance that I agree couldn't replace barbell training.

I would argue the opposite. The sports performance world is always on the look out for that extra 1%.

Things that don't work get dropped and fast.

This is where we fundamentally differ. I simply don't think "everybody's doing that" is a convincing argument at all. I believe most people care far more about keeping their jobs than about improving something by 1%. Thus, things that don't work at all may be dropped, but things that do work well enough aren't likely to be challenged or replaced.

 

[Boris Bachmann]

How do you explain such an anecdote? They could literally try the kettlebells for free and had a friendly kettlebell instructor. If the performance was the most important factor, they would surely jump at the opportunity to experiment with something that might result in a competitive edge. However, if I'm right, it makes sense - nobody wanted to be held responsible if the KBs turned out to not be so useful or even harmful. So they waited until KBs became "normal" enough.

Yes, that's just it - they didn't want to be 'early adopters' and it IS understandable. The athletic director is a great guy, but on the topic of KBs and S&C obviously a little conservative (as someone who's working w. high school age kids probably should be). KBs (again, obviously) have proven themselves over the subsequent years and are quite mainstream in programs at all levels.

 

[bluejeff]

I'm wondering in what way would a barbell be superior to kettlebells with regards to conditioning? For absolute strength I can understand, but for conditioning...

I'm wondering how one does "conditioning" with a barbell. What is conditioning?

I am still wondering what the definition of conditioning in regards to this video even is. The broadness and vagueness is what struck me right off the bat. As asked above, how does one do strength and conditioning with a barbell? Isn't that called CrossFit?

Jokes aside, the question still stands. How does a barbell benefit the conditioning part of "strength and conditioning" unless someone actually defines what they mean by "conditioning?" So many debates in the training world (and many other areas, come to think of it . . .) come down to semantics, and the fact that the debate participants are arguing different points using the same word(s).

That's why I agree that, as stated above, the video seems like "fluff." Sorry but "high level SnC" isn't all that clear. . . high level for what context? Maybe those that already follow these guys know what context they are speaking in, but to those of us that don't....still seems a little vague to me.

I'm not saying a barbell can't, for instance, benefit your work capacity through increased maximal strength, but once again, I think context matters. If specific context is lacking, "what is best for...?" videos are to be taken with a very large grain of salt imo.

 

[Starlord]

Exactly, I think their whole video about S&C and the tools to get there lacks depth and details. You must first define what strength is and what conditioning is before you can make assumptions as to what tools are better to get you there. In the specific context of each individual looking at using said tools.

No because they are answering questions left by the viewers from previous videos. So the assumption is that the viewer understands exactly what they mean when they use these terms.

A barbell won't be as useful for a marathon runner or rock climber as it would be for a football player. The kind of strength and where you want that strength (arms, finger, glutes, back etc) will be specific to each individual and their goals. Same goes for conditioning.

Why won't they?

They conclude that a barbell is better than a set of kettlebells for high level S&C. I say that it all depends on your goals and objectives and can't be as clear cut as they seem to make it. One could argue that a good bicycle is better than a barbell for conditioning. Hell a good pair of running shoes is also better. They should have made the case that a barbell is better for absolute strength than KBs and leave conditioning out, whatever conditioning is.

in regards to the strength aspect it will be to produce maximum amount of strength and explosiveness in the weight room. That the athlete can then learn to apply in their sports specific training.

 

[bluejeff]

they are answering questions left by the viewers from previous videos. So the assumption is that the viewer understands exactly what they mean when they use these terms.

Ah ha, context! This would have been helpful at the beginning of thread imo. I have enjoyed reading it though!

 

[Starlord]

That's why I agree that, as stated above, the video seems like "fluff." Sorry but "high level SnC" isn't all that clear. . . high level for what context? Maybe those that already follow these guys know what context they are speaking in, but to those of us that don't....still seems a little vague to me.

As mentioned in the video for athletes. So we're looking at those who are competitive.

And as mentioned early on in the video, they are answering questions posted in the comment section of their previous videos.

So I think we can VERY safely assume they are talking about the strength portion.

Otherwise the conditioning aspect would just be easy runs, cycles, rower and Ski-Erg for the most part.

As these tools are superior for developing aerobic capacity, lactic threshold and VO2 max than the barbell and kettlebell combined.

I'm not saying a barbell can't, for instance, benefit your work capacity through increased maximal strength, but once again, I think context matters. If specific context is lacking, "what is best for...?" videos are to be taken with a very large grain of salt imo.

Well work capacity is the bodies ability to positively perform and respond to stress. Which I think we can both agree that many tools can be used for that function.