Starlord
Level 5 Valued Member
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.We'll def have to agree to disagree on several points.
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.
When the shoulder isn't pinned back it leaves one prone to shoulder and rotator cuff injuries.
Hence why they aren't as heavily used in an SnC setting.
The days of trying to directly mimic what is done in sport in an SnC environment had a very short life span.Deficit skater squats or BSS loaded with a pair of heavy kbs, dumbbells, sandbags etc are going to provide plenty of leg work and comparable resistance while eliminating lumbar flexion entirely. Also you will almost never execute a bilateral squat in a dynamic setting. Again I'll refer to Boyle, who has explained his rationale better than I can.
Now we're back to the soviet methodology of strength training. Which is that the work in the gym is to develop maximal strength and power output in relation to their sport, some specific work and pre/rehab work.
Sports specific work is where the athlete learns to apply that strength and power specifically to their sport.
That's why all the best throwers, rugby teams, football teams, rugby avec fag pad teams, rowers, wrestlers etc all attempt to get as strong as possible until the pursuit of additional strength takes away too much adaptive energy from the specific sports work.
Rip is a poor example to quote. As he has had zero serious athletes he has coached to any level of success.In my opinion the only thing barbell owns is heavy back squat and DL. Everything else can be subb'd using other means that (combined with sport specific drills) will provide comparable qualities. We're talking about tension, movement speed, movement mechanics (pretty sure Rip has a concise quote about Oly lifts to that effect). There is nothing magical about ANY individual implement. Additionally barbell forces the hands to align under load in ways the body would never adopt on its own.
Rips call to fame is writing arguably one of the best beginner strength programs ever.
But if you've ever heard successful weightlifting coaches pick apart what he says, you quickly see the deficiencies of his knowledge.
This to me is a prime example of the exception doesn't disprove the rule. Machines are a GREAT addition.Every time the primacy of barbell (or any other mode) come up I am compelled to bring up the '72 Dolphins who trained on Nautilus, not barbell.
But the barbell is king. That's why most use the barbell.
Their argument is specifically for high level SnC. Not for the average trainee in general. They already conceded that KB are a great tool for general trainees.If we're talking about traditional KB or Bulgarian bag being a substitute for focused strength training I 100% agree with the video. But with very little fuss these tools can be used for all manner of training. If they're arguing the necessity of barbell for anything, then I flat out disagree.
I agree with the boys from the Undemocratic Republic of Sikastan in the way that the barbell is king for the strength portion of SnC.
I personally rate KB and sandbags a little higher than they do.
Mace's I do not rate in the slightest. Neither do I rate bulgarian bags specifically. I can do windmills with a kettlebell. Done.
Loving this debate so far and the feedback from everyone thus far.