all posts post new thread

Kettlebell Sikastan view on kettlebells

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Ah ha, context! :) This would have been helpful at the beginning of thread imo. I have enjoyed reading it though!
It was mentioned a few times in the video lol.

There is a good back and forth. I do enjoy a good debate. I definitely agree that the barbell is king (as mentioned in this thread and in previous posts) but I do think KB could be applied moreso than what they insinuated.

Although that then becomes my interpretation and that could be way off.
 
I don't know but I can see why some people attribute a cult like attitude to kettlebells.

Every now and then, like just right now elsewhere on the forum, we get a thread where the kettlebell is claimed or seen as something magical. It's not. It's a lump of iron with a handle, made to a specific load. Like the dumbbell or the barbell.

You can do idiotic training with the kettlebell, against all StrongFirst principles. Get injured or aspire to become a bodybuilder, whatever. Just like you can train intelligently with the barbell or whatever tool you choose. The tool does not dictate the programming. The tool does not dictate the programming.

The barbell is the most convenient strength tool for increasing the load, and also the one with most capacity for load. In strength training, load is king. Thus, barbell is the king of tools when it comes to strength training.

Of course there are other factors. Some people find them more important. But if strength is a real priority, there is no way around it.

The kettlebell is great. The shape is good for swings and snatches and they are where the kettlebell excels. But no reason to make it more than it is.
 
I don't know but I can see why some people attribute a cult like attitude to kettlebells.

Every now and then, like just right now elsewhere on the forum, we get a thread where the kettlebell is claimed or seen as something magical. It's not. It's a lump of iron with a handle, made to a specific load. Like the dumbbell or the barbell.

You can do idiotic training with the kettlebell, against all StrongFirst principles. Get injured or aspire to become a bodybuilder, whatever. Just like you can train intelligently with the barbell or whatever tool you choose. The tool does not dictate the programming. The tool does not dictate the programming.

The barbell is the most convenient strength tool for increasing the load, and also the one with most capacity for load. In strength training, load is king. Thus, barbell is the king of tools when it comes to strength training.

Of course there are other factors. Some people find them more important. But if strength is a real priority, there is no way around it.

The kettlebell is great. The shape is good for swings and snatches and they are where the kettlebell excels. But no reason to make it more than it is.
Me personally I think where the kettlebell excels I the learning curve. I cannot clean or snatch with a barbell.

But I self taught myself to do both with a kettlebell within a very short space of time.

Now I also conceded that I don't have the same power in my hips that rugby players around my bodyweight who can clean and snatch with a barbell.

But early on I didn't have access to a coach to teach me the barbell variations and the kettlebell offered me a great alternative.
 
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.
I think you've missed the point of that post. What I was attempting to say, perhaps too long-windedly, is that the argument that "no one is doing it so it must not work" is a bad argument. This just gets into the weeds though; I'll leave it at that clarification.
 
@Starlord you're missing my point. What I'm saying is that the barbell, just like any other training tool, can't do everything that is needed in a S&C program. Same as the kettlebell or any other implement.
Why won't they?
Because they don't need to.
So the assumption is that the viewer understands exactly what they mean when they use these terms.
Why make this assumption?
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.
Like I said, this has nothing to do with conditioning.
 
I think you've missed the point of that post. What I was attempting to say, perhaps too long-windedly, is that the argument that "no one is doing it so it must not work" is a bad argument. This just gets into the weeds though; I'll leave it at that clarification.
But the USSR did do it and opt to use the barbell as the primary tool for the strength portion of SnC.

And again we can only comment on what we know. We can go into how playing pogs would be a superior SnC tool to the barbell and then say its a bad argument to say no one is doing it, so it mustn't work.

The purpose of the S portion of SnC is to build of foundation of maximal strength and explosiveness, without impeding sports specific training.

A 100kg KB swing is great and I have recommended it before. But a 300kg deadlift is better.
 
You don't think endurance runners benefit from increasing their squat to say 100kg?
This is a good question; one I freely admit to not knowing the answer to. Many of the serious locomotive endurance folks I know (myself included) favour unilateral leg work such as split squats and the like. Admittedly some actually do this with a barbell.

And maybe it’s semantics (or at least contextual?) but these folks are looking not at maximal strength in their strength work, but optimal strength…
 
Something regarding information presentation and debate strategies rather than the content of the debate itself:

Posting a video where "it is assumed the viewer understands exactly what they mean when they use these terms" and siding with their argument ( whether "right" or "wrong") would be bit like a gymnast or follower of Ido Portal coming in here and saying that either of those methods was best for SnC. This isn't a gymnastics or "movement culture" forum, so I wouldn't expect people to understand the context. While many people here DO understand the barbell, they also were not part of the conversation in previous videos by Sika. They may have mentioned that they were responding to viewers' questions, but we did not have access to the specifics of those questions. Rather, we had a vague presentation of "what's best for elite SnC."

I don't actually disagree with the points being made (for the most part), rather, it was the vague presentation of the argument that threw me for a loop. A little elaboration likely would have made the discussion a bit smoother.

Two cents :)
 
Something regarding information presentation and debate strategies rather than the content of the debate itself:

Posting a video where "it is assumed the viewer understands exactly what they mean when they use these terms" and siding with their argument ( whether "right" or "wrong") would be bit like a gymnast or follower of Ido Portal coming in here and saying that either of those methods was best for SnC. This isn't a gymnastics or "movement culture" forum, so I wouldn't expect people to understand the context. While many people here DO understand the barbell, they also were not part of the conversation in previous videos by Sika. They may have mentioned that they were responding to viewers' questions, but we did not have access to the specifics of those questions. Rather, we had a vague presentation of "what's best for elite SnC."

I don't actually disagree with the points being made (for the most part), rather, it was the vague presentation of the argument that threw me for a loop. A little elaboration likely would have made the discussion a bit smoother.

Two cents :)
Just to tag along on this a bit… (I too, don’t totally disagree with the points being made in the video, although I still maintain SnC is highly contextual in nature) What bothered me in their presentation style is stooping to ‘appeal to ridicule’ by the inclusion of some of their clips.
 
If I was to train for high level contact sport and I could only use 1 implement it would be a barbell.

If I had normal access to equipment my time split might be 2:1 in favour of the kettlebell.
 
I don't know but I can see why some people attribute a cult like attitude to kettlebells.

Over the last few years a similar trend has cropped up around barbell. The number of people using them for general fitness and benchmarking fitness to “your numbers”, driving themselves to squat, DL, and bench heavier no matter their form is out of all proportion to their utility in that role. Likewise the Oly lifts. Not to say either of these applications aren’t effective, but again they are definitely not the only game in town for eliciting similar response.

The KB mania wave has come and gone leaving a much more realistic understanding of pros and cons, while proponents of barbell have only become more strident, completely ignoring startup cost, space requirements, joint angle limitations (don't worry, there's another bar for that), proper form, and the fact most people will never move enough load to need it in the first place.

High level S&C with increasing utility as subjects bodyweight goes up, definitely a must.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom